Commons Sitting of 23 June 1828

SMALL DEBTS BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that since his return to office, no subject had occupied so much of his attention as this bill. Until lately he had hoped to be able to pass the bill into a law during the present session. That hope had now vanished;— but it was satisfactory to know, that the difficulties which opposed the passing of it were not connected with the principle of the measure. He would briefly state the circumstances which induced him not to attempt to pass the bill during the present session. If the bill were to pass, it must contain a clause for affording compensation to those holders of patent offices whose interests might be affected by it.— Nothing could be more disadvantageous to the public, than those partial compensations. Bills of this nature, whilst they diminished the emoluments of some patent offices, increased those of others. Then, when the latter came to be dealt with, the public were obliged to make compensation for the increased emoluments occasioned by previous reforms. Since the bill was introduced into the House, a commission had been appointed to inquire into the practice in the superior courts of law.—It was probable that the commission would suggest some plan for dealing with the patent offices generally. At all events he was disposed to wait until he could ascertain the intentions of the commissioners on that point. He thought it would be much more advantageous to consider the claims of the holders of patent offices altogether, than to go on making compensation by instalments. It was with great regret he saw that all the pains he had bestowed on the bill would he unavailing, so tar as regarded the present session; but he felt that he should be acting for the interests of the public to abandon the measure for the present.
After a short conversation, the bill was read a second time and committed for Friday.

MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONEY.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, he rose, in pursuance of his notice, to address the House on a subject which was deeply interesting to all who had any regard to the first principles of the constitution. The jealousy of the House with respect to the issue of Public Money was proved, by the records of parliament, to have existed as long as the parliament itself; and he needed not occupy the time of the House by any argument of his to vindicate the feelings which had given rise to that jealousy. He took it to be an established principle, that the House of Commons had a right to control the expenditure of public money, come in what shape and from what quarter it might into the hands of the executive government; and he boldly asserted, that any deviation from that principle and rule of conduct was a violation of the privileges of the House, and, on the part of the government, a censurable dereliction of its duty to the public. He had now had the honour of sitting nearly forty years in the House of Commons, and he had taken up this subject from a conviction that it was his duty not to overlook one of the most flagrant and daring violations of the privileges of parliament, which had taken place since the æra of the Revolution. The statements which he was then about to make arose out of the papers which had been laid upon their table. They arose, also, out of facts which had come to his knowledge from other quarters. He believed those facts to be true, and he challenged the government to contradict them. We must all recollect the unfortunate war which had so long distracted and desolated Europe, and which had burthened England with a load of debt, which was hourly consuming its energies. It had entailed lasting misery, he was afraid, upon the country; and from that war, and from its consequences, the present motion took its rise. At the close of that unfortunate war, it was found that many of the subjects of Great Britain had strong claims on the government of France for property which had been unjustly confiscated by it during the Revolution; and by the treaty of Paris, in May, 1814, it was stipulated, that the government of France should pay

1477
a certain sum of money into the hands of commissioners, to be appointed by the government of England, for the liquidation of the claims which might be made on it by British subjects. In pursuance of that stipulation, the 59th George 3rd, c. 31, was passed, by which commissioners were appointed to liquidate the claims of British subjects against the government of France. The object of their inquiry was clearly defined to them, and he believed that the commissioners acted as commissioners ought to act. The termination of one of the clauses of the above ran in this manner:—" In case all such claims are liquidated, for such other purposes as the said commissioners of the Treasury, or any three of them, may direct, the commissioners may apply them." The meaning of this was, that the surplus, if any, after the payment of all the claims, was to be paid in such way as the commissioners, or any three of them, might direct by their warrant. It so happened, that there was an act passed in the 6th of the king, enabling the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to apportion to certain purposes named therein, certain parts of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which, by the 4th of the king, were to be paid in future into the consolidated fund.— Now, the 6th of the king, inconsequence of the preparations which were making to build a palace at Buckingham-house, ordered the commissioners of Woods and Forests to pay over 70,000 l. a year to those who were intrusted with the superintendence of that work, and to apportion it to the buildings at Buckingham-palace alone, without paying any part of it to the consolidated fund. He believed that nearly the whole of this 70,000 l. was expended in the first year in building stables and in laying out gardens and shrubberies for the intended palace, and that only 27,000 l. was expended in building the palace. At the same time, he was ready to admit that, by the words of the act, whatever was placed to the account of refitting Buckingham-palace was legally entitled to be paid out of the proceeds of the hereditary revenue of the Crown. Tins took place in 1825, and in the commencement of the next year, arose the transaction, of which his public duty now compelled him to complain. And here he would observe, that it was his opinion, that if the deficiency of the funds assigned for the erection of the new palace had
1478
been stated to his majesty, he would have frankly stated it to his faithful Commons, and that his faithful Commons, if it had been fairly stated to them, would not have hesitated to make it good. The question, however, before the House, was not a question as to the erection of a palace, but a question distinctly apart from it. It was a question, whether the king's ministers had a right to dispose as they pleased of surplus revenue which had unexpectedly come into their hands, when parliament was sitting, and able to judge whether the issue of the money, for the purposes selected by ministers, was correct or not. Under such circumstances, he considered the measure which ministers had adopted to be a most censurable one. As parliament was sitting during the time that these issues were made, there could be no fear of any injury being occasioned by the delay which an application to Parliament might occasion. As the application might have been disposed of in a week, had ministers been inclined to make it, there could be no room for saying, that the progress of the building must be stopped, whilst the success of the application was still uncertain. Parliament ought to have been informed, that the funds assigned by the 6th of the king were insufficient for the purposes to which they were destined. Though 70,000 l. were to be paid annually, to defray the cost of Buckingham-palace, and were to be paid out of the revenues of the Woods and Forests, he believed that there was only one year in which that sum had been paid by the commissioners of Woods and Forests and that year was 1825. It had been said, that a right hon. friend of his, who was then the chief commissioner of Woods and Forests, had found himself, at the commencement of the year 1826, in a very unpleasant situation, in consequence of having the payment of large sums on account of this new palace demanded of him, and of having nothing wherewith to make it. His right hon. friend applied to lord Liverpool respecting the unhappy failure of the revenues of the Woods and Forests. At that meeting, were present the earl of Liverpool, Mr. Canning, Lord Goderich, and the present Master of the Mint. On the statement of his right hon. friend the chief commissioner was sent for, and asked, whether out of the money which he had received from the Treasury for the liquidation of the claims

1479
of British subjects against the government of France, there did not still remain a large proportion undisposed of. He replied, "I think we have about 300,000 l." —"Well, then," replied the Lords of the Treasury, "we'll dispose of it." Then there was a resort to two or three expedients. The first was a determination to get into their hands as soon as possible 100,000 l. To obtain that money, however, there must be a Treasury minute.— Now, if the papers on the table were correct, the Treasury minute was not signed till twenty days after the money was issued. This went a long way to show the object for which it was drawn up. After the money had been issued en the 10th to the commissioners of Woods and Forests, it was found necessary that there should be a Treasury minute drawn up, in order to enable the Treasury hereafter to recover the money. Now, what said the Treasury minute? "My lords, direct a warrant to be prepared, authorising the Commissioners of Arbitration, Liquidation, and Award out of the Exchequer bills in their possession, to pay over to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests the sum of 100,000 l., and which sum, together with the interest from the date of the bills to be delivered over, is to be repaid to them by the Commissioners of Woods when the repayment may be required." Now, if this fact had not come out by good fortune, how would the country have known any thing about it? It was in every respect a concealed loan, until the fact of its existence came out. The sum thus clandestinely disposed of was the largest sum that had ever been disposed of in the same manner by any government in England. He should be glad to know when the Treasury had received the power to grant, and when the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to accept, a loan in this manner. If it was a regular loan, when had the interest of it been paid, and to what account had it been carried? It would be a monstrous proposition for the government to say, 'As this is a surplus of money received from France, we have a right to dispose of it as we please." If five millions had been paid to the British government by the French for the purpose of satisfying the claims which our subjects had upon it, and if a surplus of 250,000 l. remained, it ought to have been issued, not under the control of the Treasury, but of the House of Commons. What control had the
1480
House had over these grants of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests?— None whatever. The return which had been made to his motion was carefully worded. The Treasury had sent in a return which it afterwards recalled; because it was not quite good enough for the purposes it was intended to answer. The return was amended in order to show that the lords of the Treasury had no other object in issuing their warrant but the public good; and therefore they wished to show that they had issued a part of it for the relief of the starving manufacturers. They saw that it was necessary to gild the pill which they were gulling the public to swallow. But what followed. When money is borrowed of the government it is borrowed by Exchequer bills. Now those gentlemen who formed the committee for the relief of the distressed manufacturers had repaid every shilling of the money which they had borrowed of the Treasury. The money had been advanced at different times to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Had they paid one farthing, or were they able to do so? The first sum of 100,000 l. was advanced to them by a Treasury warrant on the 10th of March, 1826—the further sum of 35,000 l. on the 8th February, 1827 —a further, sum of 100,000 l. on the 26th of March—and a still further sum of 15,000 l. on the 30th of June in the same year, and all on account of the works erecting at Buckingham-palace. Here we had 250,000 l. issued within two years as a loan to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests? When was the power to grant such a loan given to the Treasury by statute? They had no right to divert the funds which came into their hands for public purposes to such objects. But it was said, forsooth, that the advance of this sum will come into the triennial accounts given in by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Now those triennial accounts merely contained the receipts and disbursements of the hereditary revenues of the Crown; they had nothing to do with any adventitious funds which might be added to them from other quarters; and therefore this argument was a wretched subterfuge. He was almost ashamed to call the attention of the House to a fact so notorious as the jealousy exhibited by the House, at the granting of money by the ministers of the Crown, without the knowledge of parliament. It was neces-

1481
sary, however, to advert to one or two instances of it. The first was the case of sir E. Seymour. Sir E. Seymour was impeached, because he, being Treasurer of the Navy in May, 1680, did lend 90,000 l. out of the sum of 584,000 l. which had been voted for the support of the army, to other than the purposes for which it had been intended. Every one knew the purpose to which the money had been applied. The motion was got rid of by an amendment; but the reception of it showed that, even in those days, parliament was alive to the subject. On the 15th of May, 1711, a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the causes of the great increase of the public debt. A series of resolutions were passed by that committee. The third resolution was so strong, that he would read it," Resolved, that the application of any sum of unappropriated money, or surplusages of funds to uses not voted, or addressed for by parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and a violation of the privileges of this House." This resolution was passed in 1711 by the House upon taking a view of the situation in which the country had been placed, by the misapplication of the public money. In 1796, a case somewhat similar to the present occurred. Mr. Pitt might advance the plea of urgent necessity, to justify him in the step which he then took; but it was impossible that any such plea could be advanced in the present instance. Mr. Pitt was on this occasion attacked by Mr. Fox. He might have argued in his defence, that the country was then at war, and that he did not think it would be prudent to open the, concerns of the government to their enemies. But, how was the plea of necessity received by the House? It appeared, that Mr. Pitt had lent nearly 100,000 l. and other monies to the emperor, out of funds which had been voted for other purposes; and because he did so without the knowledge or consent of parliament, a vote of censure upon his conduct was moved by Mr. Fox, and upon that motion an amendment was proposed by Mr. Bragge. When Mr. Pitt opened his budget he obtained a vote of credit for 1,500,000 l. It afterwards turned out, that he had lent 200,000 l. of that money to the prince of Conde. Not a word, however, had been mentioned on the subject to the House at the time; but, towards the end of 1796, the misapplica-
1482
tion was discovered, and Mr. Fox arraigned what had been done. The city of London and the whole country became alive to the matter. Mr. Fox moved a vote of censure on the ministers. The thing had been done in the time of war, and the pica of necessity was put forward as its justification. But, would they be able to show that the appropriation of the public money in the present instance, was justifiable upon the plea of necessity? The next instance was one in which 40,000 l. had been advanced by Mr. Pitt to Boyd and Ben field. The matter was brought before parliament, and it was moved by Mr. Fox "That the advance of 40,000 l. for purposes other than the public purposes for which it had been voted by that House, being contrary to law, might, unless noticed by the House, be entertained as a precedent of a dangerous nature." That motion was considered in the light of a direct censure upon the ministers; and an amendment was moved to this effect, "That the advance being for the purpose of supporting a House under temporary difficulties, and whose support was connected with the financial affairs of the country, though not strictly according to law, might, under the circumstances, be justifiable." He could not wish for a more pointed introduction to his resolutions. The hon. member proceeded to observe, that lord Melville was not impeached so much for the various sums which had been misappropriated, as on account of having applied a particular sum of 10,000 l. to purposes foreign from those for which it had been intended: and for which, when called upon he would give no account. That transaction was found out by a commission of this House; and the present instance of misappropriation had been discovered by a select committee. He trusted, that whatever should become of his motion, the commissioners of Woods and Forests would be made to refund this sum. He protested, that a case of greater grievance to the state, and one which involved a more direct violation of the privileges of that House, had, in his opinion, never occurred; and he now called upon the House to show ministers that it should never occur again, by coming to an emphatic resolution on the subject. They had to determine whether that House had a right to know what was passing as to the expenditure of the public money. This money had been misap-

1483
plied by the government, in the face of an act of parliament. Perhaps it would be said, that it was an oversight; but why was it found out in the manner in which it was discovered? Why was it not stated to the House at the time; and why did not ministers ask for a bill of indemnity? The whole transaction was in direct opposition to the first principles of the British constitution. He would conclude by proposing two resolutions; one declaratory of the facts, the other a resolution copied from the Journals of the House in the year 1711. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That it appears from the papers laid upon the table of this House, that the commissioners of liquidation, arbitration, and deposit for the liquidation of the claims of British subjects, against the government of France, under the act of the 59th of George 3rd, cap. 31, did, at different times, by orders from the lords commissioners of the Treasury, pay over to the commissioners of Woods and Forests the following sums of money, that is to say 100,000 l. on the 10th March, 1826; 35,000 l. on the 8th February, 1827; 100,000 l. on the 26th March 1827; 15,000 l. on the 30th June, 1827; amounting altogether to the sum of 250,000 l., without any communication to this House, and without any vote or address of this House to authorize the same, though parliament was sitting at the time the said different sums were issued.
"Resolved,—That the application of any sum of unappropriated money, or surpluses of funds, to uses not voted or addressed for by parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and a violation of the privileges of this House."
Mr. Herriessaid, the reason why he ventured to present himself so early in the debate to the attention of the House, arose from the circumstance of the peculiar office which he held at the time having rendered him conversant with the transaction to which this motion had reference. It had been stated by the hon. member, with all that gravity which showed that he attached a deep importance to the question, that a transaction of more grievance to the subject, and in more direct violation of the privileges of parliament, had not occurred since the Revolution. If the subject were indeed of that nature, a heavy responsibility would attach to one individual, who, though still alive, was no longer in a condition to vindicate
1484
himself, and whose character would be gone for ever if the charge were well founded. The charge would fall with equal weight upon another individual, whom death had removed from the scene. The charge, in fact, would attach to the late Mr. Canning, to lord Liverpool, who could not defend themselves, and to lord Goderich, who could answer for himself. But, by bringing the real state of the case before the House, he hoped to be able to show that these statesmen were not open to this charge,—a charge which, if true, amounted to nothing more nor less than that of a misapplication of the public money, in violation of the principles of the constitution. This was not a question of the violation of a statute; it was a question involving the violation of those principles of the constitution which related to the appropriation of the public money. Before he proceeded further, it might be as well to remove the impression which an argument of the hon. gentleman's, founded upon those documents respecting the transaction, was calculated to make. The hon. gentleman had been unquestionably misled by an error in one of the documents laid before the House. According to the document on their table, it would appear that the money had been issued on the 10th of March, while the warrant bore date the 30th of March. From this it would appear, that the money had been given by the commissioners previous to the issuing of the warrant; and if that were the case, the observations of the hon. member on that part of the subject, would have been quite justifiable. But the whole of this seemingly extraordinary version of the transaction was attributable to the mistake of the clerk in putting the 10th of March for the 5th of April. The letter from the Treasury to the commissioners bore date the 31st of March. The warrant was made out on the 30th, and the issue of the money, which was thereby authorized, did not take place till the 5th of April. He trusted that this explanation had removed the impression made on the House by the statements of the hon. gentleman, in reference to this part of the transaction—He would now proceed with the facts of the case. In 1825, lord Goderich, then chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in a bill for the repairing and rebuilding of the public palaces, and of Buckingham-house in particular. At that time it was stated, that it was not possible

1485
to give a definite account of the amount of expenditure that would be required: 250,000 l. was the sum estimated, and a grant to that amount was passed. The grant was made out of the revenues arising from the Crown lands, which the Treasury was authorised to apply to that purpose. However, after the work had been some time in progress, it was found that these funds were inadequate to meet the expenses accruing. The various expenses incurred in the beautifying and improving of the parks, had been defrayed out of the revenues of the Crown lands, and their concurrence at this time with the expenses necessary for the erection of the palaces, pressed so heavily on these funds, that they were not sufficient for the latter purpose. It was under these circumstances that it was intimated to the lords of the Treasury, that the commissioners for liquidating the claims on France, after having made awards to all the claimants that had presented themselves, had then a sum in their hands after satisfying all the demands; and they left it to the lords of the Treasury to determine what was to be done with it. The first step of the lords of the Treasury was to take the opinion of the king's advocate. That learned individual stated it as his opinion, that the surplus, having been handed over, under the provisions of the act, to the Treasury, was at their disposal, and could be appropriated by them to whatever public purpose they considered best. The communication enclosing this opinion was made by the Secretary of State to the Treasury. It was on the receipt of that communication, that the meeting was held to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, and it was at that meeting, that the lords of the Treasury decided upon the matter, in concurrence with the Secretary of State. After all the claims had been adjudicated, the surplus of 250,000 l. still remained at the disposal of the lords of the Treasury; which they considered themselves warranted in appropriating to public purposes. In this appropriation, Mr. Canning, lord Liverpool, and lord Goderich concurred, and shared alike the responsibility. The balance so applied was not alienated, but employed on an object by which the public service was essentially promoted. What was done was done under the authority of parliament itself. They had equal authority for possessing and for appropriating the money as it was
1486
applied. The precedents alluded to by the hon. member ought to warrant a conclusion directly opposite to that which the hon. member would have them to infer. In 1711, the committee had conic to a resolution, "that the application of any sum of unappropriated money or surplusages of funds to uses not voted or addressed for by parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and a violation of the privileges of that House." Did this precedent apply to the case before them? In all cases of supply, parliament restrains the application to specific purposes of government; but, in ways and means, money may be appropriated to any purposes sanctioned by a grant of parliament. In the case of Buckingham-house there was no restriction imposed, as a sufficient estimate of the expenses could not be made out. The amount, therefore, to which the hereditary revenues of the Crown might be applied was necessarily indefinite. The Treasury had merely anticipated the application of the funds. They anticipated what parliament granted; and following up that intention, they made application for raising the money which might not have come in time to defray the instant expenses. In 1827, the landed revenue in Ireland was borrowed for the same object. All indicated the same intention on the part of parliament; and the Treasury had acted all along on the same principle. The way in which they had managed was undoubtedly the cheapest, simplest, and most economical. It might be asked, why they had not come to parliament? To this he replied, that they could not ask parliament to grant other sums for this purpose, when money was placed already at their disposal by the authority of parliament. That authority they had distinctly received from parliament in three several ways. Could the noble persons who were so inconsiderately accused, come down to the House and ask for other funds than those which were already at their disposal? He was quite at a loss to know on what principle such a suggestion could be laid down. As he was himself a party in the execution of this act, he had risen to defend it; admitting that if any censure, were to be attached to it, it would as properly fall upon himself as on any other person. He could not acknowledge the alleged violation of the constitution, where what was done was in furtherance of the express intention of parliament. He would

1487
give an emphatic denial to the truth of the hon. member's inference from the determination of the Treasury to interfere for the relief of the distressed manufacturers in 1826. In reference to this measure the hon. member had said, that the Treasury thought it necessary to "gild the pill," in order to reconcile the people of England to an extravagance so unpalateable. This implied a suspicion, that the Treasury had abused public feeling, and got up this as a cover for a culpable and dishonest prodigality. Was it to be believed that the hon. member for Midhurst could be implicated in such a conspiracy to trick the public? He should now leave the subject to others better able than he was to enter into a discussion of the constitutional point which it was supposed to involve. Satisfied that the conduct of the several governments had been strictly legal, and ministerially correct—that in every particular they had been actuated only by a sincere desire for the interest of the public, and had proceeded upon honest, upright and conscientious motives, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. Baringsaid, that, having been occupied for some time in the finance committee, he thought it right, in the absence of the hon. chairman, to put the House in possession of the veal facts of the case. Although the hon. member for Durham had already so fully stated them, they had yet been so changed and turned about by the tortuous speech of the right hon. gentleman, that the House might be presumed scarcely to know the real undisguised truth on which they were to form their decision. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman, who would have them to depart thence without deeming it their duty to take any notice whatever of the subject. In a case like this, where the character and dignity of the House were concerned, they should not assume, upon the word of any individual, that government had been guilty of no improper conduct. The right hon. gentleman appeared to follow a rather extraordinary course respecting this question, as when it was canvassed in the finance committee, he had admitted, that "it was certainly rather irregular." He also said, if his memory did not deceive him, "he wished it had been otherwise." In reply, he remembered to have himself said, that as irregularity was acknowledged, it was their duty to investigate, whether some
1488
stronger term was not applicable. He had been one of those who objected to making it a subject of examination in the committee, as he felt that, in the early part of their proceedings, it would be better to avoid all topics of a personal nature, which were likely to be agitated as matters of public scandal. He had felt the importance of not mixing up such questions with their labours, as they might tend to embarrass and derange them.—Others had suggested, that they should make it a subject of a special report. But as the actors were out of the way, it appeared more advisable to defer the subject until they should come to the particular department to which it properly belonged; and he had even drawn up the precise form of words in which he wished it to be spoken of. It was intended to be any thing rather than a personal question. There was no desire to criminate any individuals; nor did it so affect any of the present cabinet. He did not impute to the individuals who had so misapplied this money, the intending any great violation of the constitution, but of having been guilty of great carelessness, and most decidedly, under the circumstances, with having violated the privileges of the House. This they had done; and the House could not stop on the threshold of such a discovery, and negative the performance of their highest constitutional duty. The present motion was not meant to produce any effect upon an administration; it implied no serious reflection even on the character of individuals; nevertheless it was a case which, when once brought under the view of parliament, they must be lost to every sense of their own character, if they hesitated to assert their legitimate control over the application of the public expenditure. If things like these were to be passed over unnoticed, that House must consent to pass for nothing in the public eye, and be prepared to sink into insignificance.— Now, what were the facts of this case?— The right hon. gentleman stated, what indeed was true, that 250,000 l. had been advanced from the fund for French claims, to enable the commissioners of the land revenues, to defray an advanced expenditure for the improvement and repairs of Buckingham-house; and the application of lord Goderich in 1825, was founded upon an estimate, that 200,000 l. would be necessary to complete these repaint and im-

1489
provements. Yet, what was the fact?—That now, in 1828, the improvements were not finished, It was natural that the crown revenues should be charged with these expenses; but it was worth observing, that their application was fenced round by regulations and acts of parliament for the purpose of preventing abuse; but, in no single provision of all these was there any recognition, by a minute, by a syllable of explanatory averment, of the power exercised by the Treasury in this case, of taking the money out of the fund for French claimants. How had this Buckingham-house estimate gone on?— Parliament, in the first place, advanced 200,000 l. upon an estimate that that sum would suffice. They, however, had made little progress in the work, when it became obvious that parliament had been deceived, and that the first grant had been made use of like a wedge, to make a lodgment for a deeper impression on the public purse, and that instead of 200,000 l., 500,000 l. would not finish the building. Having embarked in this expense, the government were bound to have come before parliament, and stated how the matter stood. Instead of taking that legitimate course, they laid their hands on this money of the commissioners for French claims. Here he was quite ready to admit, that this unappropriated sum was in a state to be dealt with by the Treasury; it was originally destined to meet the claims under the French convention, and if a surplus remained, it was, he knew, at the disposal of the Treasury "for other purposes." But, he would ask, what was the meaning of parliament putting money at the disposal of the Treasury? Was it not to secure its legitimate appropriation for the public service, and under due accountability to the House of Commons? When this money was clandestinely given, parliament was sitting. Why not then have made a return of it? Why not in 1827, or before 1828, when the thing must come out before one or both of the committees of finance, or public repairs? The irregularity was in this misapplication of public money, without first obtaining legitimate consent. No mention of it had there been until the third session after the money was surreptitiously obtained.—Had it been given to the army, navy, or miscellaneous services, it would not have been half so bad as giving it into a blind fund like the Woods and Forests, which
1490
only rendered accounts once in three years. He had never been niggardly in looking at the expenses of the Royal palaces. All he meant to say was, that the people had a right to be consulted in the application of a grant of money of this nature. It was quite impossible, upon such a statement of facts, that the House could consent to be dragged through the dirt, by not taking notice of such a transaction as this. He was glad, at all events, that this motion was to be met by a positive negative; for such a course would enable those who valued their rights, and held sacred their duty, to vindicate both, by the record of their votes, when so gross an attempt was made to set aside their constitutional functions.
Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that the hon. mover had, from an imperfect knowledge of the facts, misrepresented his part of this transaction. He remembered the matter began thus:—One morning he was with lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning, when a question was put to Mr. M'Kenzie, one of the commissioners for French claims, when that gentleman explained, that 500,000 l. remained, and he added his conviction, that not half that amount would be wanted for the reduction of the demands on the office. It was then observed by lord Liverpool, that as the repairs of Buckingham-palace had gone on with a rapidity beyond the means at hand of meeting the disbursements, it would be better to make an advance of this surplus balance to the Woods and Forests—that it should be a temporary advance, not a permanent loan, and to be repaid when called for by the Treasury, with interest. He could not agree with the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that the lords of the Treasury had not the power of making this temporary application of the money, for they were, on the face of their appointments, justified in applying it "to other purposes." The only blame which had been thrown upon them was for a concealment of the transaction. He confessed it would have been better if the advance had been made known to parliament; but it was at the same time due to the office of Woods and Forests, to declare that their accounts were open, explicit, and correct; and his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had, he believed, once invited the hon. member for Aberdeen to examine their books and papers, and inform himself of all their transactions. Indeed, he would find other advances in their books

1491
for the public service. In consequence of the great works in Regent-street, 300,000 l. had been borrowed from the Royal Exchange, and an equal sum from the Bank of England; 100,000 l. had also been advanced by the Treasury out of the consolidated fund, to enable the Woods and Forests to make particular repayments. All the branches of the department were open to the public eye; and he, while in the office, had regularly kept a balance-sheet, and should next year have had to explain this very transaction, had he remained at the head of the department. With respect to the footing on which the land revenue stood, he hoped they would allow him to remark, that on the death of king William, the nett revenue of the Crown lands was under 500 l. a year. At the commencement of the reign of George 3rd it amounted to 10,000 l. a year; and now, after all the great public works they had executed, and the cultivation of from thirty thousand to forty thousand acres of land, for providing a good supply of timber for the navy, which had saved, since 1794, nearly one million sterling, their land revenue produced, exclusive of Ireland, 150,000 l. a year.
Lord Howicksaid, that lord Goderich had expressly called for the original grant for Buckingham-house, "for repairs and fitment;" and when he called for 200,000 l., he gave a pledge, that the sum should not be exceeded by the expenditure, and yet what was the fact? Why, that 432,000 l. had been laid out on the building, without one shilling for furniture. Had or had not that expenditure received the sanction of parliament? for that was the sole question before them. And when the right hon. gentleman referred to 1794, why did he overlook the precedent of 1796, in the memorable debates which took place upon the vote of credit. Mr. Pitt then said, "As to the vote of credit, I conceive it to be a privilege granted to his majesty's ministers to employ a given sum to any such purpose as the exigency of affairs shall require;" but he afterwards added, "Have I said, that because a vote of credit is applicable to every public service, there is no question of responsibility? Have I said there is no principle of respect, of attention, of deference to parliament?" What deference or respect had been shown to parliament in this case? They had heard, indeed, that because the 200,000 l. first voted as a sum
1492
for the whole, had been despatched with "unexampled rapidity," it became necessary to cast away a much larger sum, without parliamentary notice. Wow Mr. Pitt, with respect to the emperor's loan, had I said, "The vote of credit bill of last year invests the executive government with the discretionary power of applying the sums granted in the manner that may best suit the public exigencies, and the money applied to the service of the emperor is within the amount of the grant.'' But Mr. Pitt had added, "I do not mean to say that the discretion thus vested is absolute and independent of the control of parliament, or that the minister who exercises it in an improper manner is exempted from; censure." He goes on to say, "I will admit that if, at the time of using a vote of credit, ministers foresee any expenditure which appears likely to be of consequence, either with respect to its amount or the importance or peculiarity of the subject, if it admits of a precise estimate, and if the subject is of such a nature that it can be divulged without injury to the public, I should readily admit, that the minister would fail in his duty to parliament, that he would not act according to the sound principles of the constitution, if he were not to state the nature of the emergency, and endeavour to estimate the expense; but if, from the nature of the expense, it should be impolitic to divulge it, in that case I conceive the minister to be justified who conceals it from parliament till a future season." Such was the language of Mr. Pitt. What inconvenience could have followed the disclosure of this expenditure, on the present occasion? Had there not been resolutions after resolutions by that House, directing that no public work should be carried on without a proper estimate being laid before them? What greater censure could be pronounced on the late transaction, than that which was conveyed in these declarations of Mr. Pitt? On the whole, he implored parliament to exercise their functions as became them on such an occasion.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the present question had been brought forward most irregularly. His hon. friend who had introduced it had, with his usual talent for detail, ransacked every source of information, and brought every thing, both from the records of the House and elsewhere, that could in any way assist his views, or be analogous to the case which he sup-

1493
posed he had made out. With respect to the case of Mr. Seymour, it was not at all in point. Parliament, in that instance, had granted a certain sum of money for the use of the navy, and it was ultimately applied to another department of the state. Then came the case in 1711, which was equally foreign to the present inquiry. But even if it were otherwise, these sums were all voted by parliament, while the fund, which was now the subject of debate, was not created by parliament, nor had it ever been in his majesty's Exchequer. It arose, he contended, out of one of those casual funds, of the same nature as droits, which were created from time to time, and over which the House could exercise no direct control. If it had not been for the act of the late king assuming that all the claims upon this ground were satisfied, the surplus would be precisely of the same character as droits; and had the Crown applied the fund in question as droits, ministers would not now be accountable for it. He repeated, that if the act of the 59th of the late king had not passed at all, every objection, both legal and constitutional, and also every claim upon the fund, would have been satisfied. All that would be necessary would be, for the ministers of the Crown to lay upon the table of the House an account of the manner in which the fund had been applied. He contended that there had been no misappropriation of money in the present instance, and he would willingly try the question on its merits, and let it be judged either by politicians or lawyers, or by that which perhaps would be found as good a criterion as either, by the common sense of the public, whether this sum was not in the light of droits. He contended, that the act of the 59th of the late king gave no direction for laying a statement before parliament of the manner in which funds which were raised and applied in the manner of this fund, had been appropriated. As the case stood, however, he had this to say, that no departure had been made from the strict letter of the law. With respect to another objection, that the residue of this money had not been applied to the purpose for which it was originally intended, had the omission in the act of parliament not occurred, no objection of this nature could have been taken. At the beginning of the seven years' war, orders were given to the king's ships, that all French vessels should be seized and
1494
brought into British ports as prisoners of war. Accordingly, the order being fulfilled, all those vessels were sold, and the profits applied to the Crown. Now, what was done with this money? Why, it was lent every year to one or other of the services connected with the state, and it was again repaid by them. At the end of the war what became of this money? It happened that France, owing to her peculiar situation with reference to this country, called upon us to repay it, and we did so. This, he conceived, was a case perfectly analogous; yet hon. gentlemen would make the House believe that the fund, which was the subject of the present debate, was still liable to any claims that might be made upon it. He contended, that it could not now be applied to any public purpose. The whole sum and substance of the matter resolved itself into this, that the money in question was a loan, and as such it was impossible that it could be accounted for as if it were a grant of parliament. It appeared that, in 1825, the House granted a sum of money for repairs and improvements at Buckingham-house. Those repairs and improvements went on more rapidly than it was at first expected, and there being a fund dormant, which was perfectly within the power of the Crown to appropriate, his majesty's ministers, seeing that the parliamentary grant was insufficient, thought fit to apply to this dormant fund by way of a loan, for the purpose of carrying on the building. This was the simple statement of the case, and he begged the House to bear in mind, that this fund was not originally voted by parliament, but was solely under the control and at the disposal of the Crown, and until its final disposal the Crown might lend it.—But there were other cases as much in point. Every gentleman was aware of the erection of the new Mews at Pimlico for his majesty's stabling. Now, the fund by means of which that building was erected arose from a loan from the droits. He could state other instances equally applicable; but he considered it unnecessary to do so. Taking this view of the question, he was led to believe that his right hon. friend (Mr. Herries) had, through inadvertence, put a negative upon the first resolution. He would not directly oppose that first motion, but the second, he was prepared, with his right hon. friend, to negative; and with respect to the first, he should vote for the previous question.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that notwithstanding the ingenious and cautious speech of his right hon. friend, he should not be doing his duty if he did not say, that he considered the whole conduct of ministers, with respect to this transaction, as mean, shuffling, and underhanded. If he objected to the misappropriation of the fund in question, it was not from any want of respect to the distinguished individuals concerned in it. He regretted, indeed, that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herries) had thought it necessary for his case, to bring forward their names; appealing, as it were, to their immediate friends to deal lightly with the present charge, in consideration of the part which they had taken in it. Up to the present moment, no account had been laid before parliament of the sums expended in the erection of Buckingham-palace. It appeared, however, that the whole amount expended by the Woods and Forests upon that building, was only 27,000 l.; and yet the ground for the application of the large sum which was now the subject of inquiry was the extraordinary pressure on the Woods and Forests. Yet the Woods and Forests were in the avowed receipt of 70,000 l. per annum. Now, as to the application of the fund. One right hon. gentleman called it an appropriation, another called it a loan, and a third a droit of the Crown; but, whatever name it was to be known by, no account had been laid before parliament with regard to its appropriation. His right hon. friend said, that there was no mention in the act of parliament, as to the disposal of this fund. There certainly was not; but it ought not, at all events, be left to the disposal of the lords of the Treasury; or if so, it would surely be a disgrace to them, that ministers of the Crown should be so shackled and tied down. As honest men and upright ministers, they ought to be enabled to render an account, without the intervention of an act of parliament. No man, let his political feelings be what they might, could lay his hand upon his heart and say, that this was not a misappropriation of the public money. If it was to be considered merely in the light of a loan, where were the words in the act, that empowered the Woods and Forests to borrow? And where, again, was the clause that empowered them to lend money which they so borrowed? It was a proceeding utterly unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the practice of parlia-
1496
ment. It was scarcely going too far to say, that the defence was disingenuous, shuffling, and underhanded.
Mr. Secretary Peelwished, laying aside all technicalities, to come to the inquiry, whether the transaction alluded to was an abuse of such a nature as to call for the public censure of two individuals, who were no longer in a condition to defend themselves; and he believed that upon such an inquiry, so conducted, their conduct would appear to be perfectly innocent in granting the warrants for the application of the money, which they never thought could involve them in any charge of illegal or unconstitutional conduct. He could undertake to show, that the course which they had adopted was warranted by act of parliament, and that if any blame attached to them, it also attached to that House. The main question was, whether they had a legal power to do as they had done, or whether, having that power, it was still, though legal, so unconstitutional in its nature and bearing, as to require to be marked by the displeasure of that House. He could not disconnect that transaction from the period of the treaty of Paris, and he only wished that those who opposed the measure so much, would refer to the debates of 1816. There they would find that, in consequence of the triumphant issue of the war, this country had become possessed of three different sums of money from France. The first was 700,000 l. in the nature of booty; the second was a still larger sum, to indemnify this country for the expenses of the war; and the third was money granted for nearly the same purpose. Yet, out of these sums, money was applied to pay the army in France, without any act of parliament to justify the application. The first sum, it was true, had been considered in the nature of booty, and upon that ground the application was defended. The second sum, which amounted to one million, was appropriated to reward the British army. How, then, could he, with these facts be-: fore his eyes, agree to the resolution of the hon. gentleman, which declared such acts to be not only illegal, but contrary to the practice of parliament? In the debates which had taken place at that period, the eminent member for Knaresborough had moved a resolution, stating that the application of such sums had a tendency to impair the rights of that House. The attention of the House had thus been called

1497
to the subject, but how was the motion disposed of? The previous question was moved upon it, and carried without a division. Was it fair, after that, for the House to turn round upon its own decision and say, that there was enough in the present case to justify them in passing a vote of censure? He would show, that the Crown had not applied the money without the consent of parliament. The third fund was, he would admit, of a special description: it was to liquidate the claims incurred by the losses of individuals. But, before they consented to pass a censure upon the two individuals to whom he had alluded, and upon a noble lord since called to the other House, he would ask them well to weigh the terms of the act of parliament. Comparing the money to which the question referred with the other funds derived from France, he believed, in his conscience, that it was intended to be left at the disposal of the Treasury. The disposal of a sum of 400,000 l. obtained from the East India Company was conducted in the same spirit. It was ordered to be paid into the Exchequer, in order to be disposed of by parliament. Was not this distinction, then, plainly admitted by this act? And was it not possible, that honest and well-intentioned ministers might think of applying the money in question, without considering that they had committed themselves in any unconstitutional proceeding? Never, until a doubt could be entertained as to the purity of their motives, would he become a party to any measure which would fix a stigma upon their names. He would admit that, if the transaction were to be done over again, it would be worth the while of parliament to see that it should not be repeated. But, while he admitted that, could he agree to such a resolution as the present, without any consideration of the motives of the men, without any reference to their characters, and without any allowance for the hurry of business and the perplexity of state affairs? He had no objection, far from it, to take a security for the future. But the real question was, what was the motive, what the intention, upon which they had acted? They knew that a triennial report of the Woods and Forests would be made, and that, in that report, the application of the sum would appear. He had no objection that the triennial report should be changed to a yearly report. It would give a security against the appro-
1498
priation of any sums without the knowledge of parliament. But, while he might be inclined to be of that opinion, was he, if in the finance committee he had admitted that the transaction was inadvertent or negligent, when he came within the walls of that House to be reminded of that admission, and to be told, that he was therefore bound to vote for the censure proposed by the hon. gentleman? He would not, under such circumstances, concur in a censure on men removed from all connection with public affairs, and who could not explain the motives by which they had been actuated. He was quite ready to allow, if an imperative duty called upon the House to visit any public conduct with censure, that then no consideration of the death of one party, or of the calamity which afflicted the other, ought to interfere with the rigid performance of that duty. The death of the one, or the affliction of the other, would not, in such a case, be the shield with which he should seek to defend them. What he maintained was, that the present was not a case for censure. But even if he were of a contrary opinion, he never should perform any public duty with feelings of so much pain, as those with which he should censure a lamented individual, whose principles and talents had been so unequivocally recognised in that very session, or approach with any other feeling than deep respect—he had almost said the memory of a noble lord, who, in the event of a rigid sense of public duty demanding a parliamentary censure on his conduct, might, at a moment when his calamity pressed upon him with less urgency, wake to the consciousness, that the only notice I which that House had taken of his long course of eminent public services was to censure him, because, having erroneously read the 31st chapter of the 59th Geo. 3, he had applied 250,000 l. to a public service, under that erroneous interpretation. He repeated, that he should never perform; any public duty so reluctantly as to agree to such a censure on lord Liverpool, if that were to be the only notice which the House of Commons were to take of that noble lord's public conduct.
Lord John Russellcomplained, that the right hon. gentleman had attempted to enlist the feelings of the House in favour of distinguished individuals, to the neglect of those higher and more solemn duties which they owed the constitution. But it

1499
was because those ministers were respected, that they should not allow a precedent to slip in, under their names, which was injurious to the rights of the people. With respect to the defence set up for that appriation, by a reference to the disposal of the sums received from France, it was stated in the act, that the sum was at the disposal of the lords of the Treasury. The right hon. member for Liverpool had attempted to take advantage of another feeling, by stating that they ought to provide a palace, and support the dignity of the Crown. If that were the question, he should be as willing as any man to give it his support; but when they saw such sums applied to the building of palaces without an act of parliament, it was time they should look about them, and appeal to the House of Commons to vindicate their own character in the eyes of the public.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that although the subject had been already discussed in such a manner as to exhaust every topic of argument, he could not allow it to go to a division, without offering a few words to the House. And here, at the outset, he could not avoid joining his noble friend in his complaint, that an attempt had been made to take advantage of their feelings, by the introduction of topics partly of a private, partly of a political, and partly of a constitutional nature. There could be no doubt but that the tendency, if not the desire, with which these topics were introduced, was to prevent the members of that House from performing the paramount duty which they owed to the people. He was unwilling to utter any expression which could be interpreted into a censure of one whose loss he greatly deplored. As much did he feel unwilling to censure a noble lord, who was prevented by calamity from defending his own conduct; or another noble lord who was alive but called to another place, and whose policy for the last four or five years had his decided approbation. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the slips and inadvertencies of public men, but they were slips and inadvertencies through which the public had become losers. Should it be considered as a loan? He was afraid it partook more of the nature of a gift. He did not approve of all the words of his hon. friend's motion; but so far as they went to denounce the appli-
1500
cation of the money, they had his entire concurrence. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last, had carried their attention to the sum of 700,000 l. which was of the nature of a booty. The next, which was a larger sum, was of the same nature also. But whether or not, they were of the nature of droits, and he would take it on the right hon. gentleman's own case, that parliament had not interfered with them at all. They had another case, however, with an act of parliament attached, declaring that it should be employed for public purposes, and at the discretion of parliament. But, was it because parliament had thought proper to legislate in one case, that ministers should make the application themselves, without any act to countenance their proceeding? Those to whom public money was intrusted for specific purposes were placed in the situation of trustees for the public: they were bound to account to the country for the way in which that money was expended: they were bound, when an appropriation of that money was contemplated, to bring it at once before parliament, by way of estimate. The right hon. member for Liverpool had treated the money which had been thus appropriated as a droit; but if it were a droit, an account of its appropriation must be laid before parliament. Now, with respect to these droits, it had been found necessary to have an act of parliament passed to compel the ministers of the Crown to lay before parliament an account of the appropriation of these funds; and it was just because this money was not a droit, that the act contained no words that had any reference to property so acquired. In point of fact, it was a public fund, placed under the control of particular officers, and parliament had an undoubted right to be made acquainted with the manner in which it was applied. —But it was said, that no mischief had arisen, or could arise, from the appropriation of money in this way. Could any man suppose, that when, in addition to 70,000 l. the revenue of the Woods and Forests in one year, a sum of 250,000 l. was ready to be appropriated, such facilities had not the effect of creating a much more lavish expenditure of money than could, under other circumstances, have been resorted to? Enough appeared, in the course of this transaction, to give rise to the most pregnant suspicion,

1501
that money had been lavishly squandered, which would not have been so employed, had it not been for the application of those funds which were at the disposal of the Treasury; funds, which ought to have been accounted for to parliament, instead of being dissipated in this extravagant manner. He did not mean to say, that the course which had been taken was adopted for the purpose of concealment; but when they found that the circumstance was not discovered for two years after, and that accidentally by the Finance Committee, they had a right to believe that there existed no intention amongst the parties, to bring the subject before parliament. There might or there might not have been concealment; but, could any one thing tend, more than another, to induce the people to believe that concealment was intended, than meeting with a direct negative the resolution of his hon. friend. That it was a violation of the privileges of that House, and of the constitution, he decidedly believed.
After a short reply, the House divided. For the Motion 102; For the previous Question 181; Majority against Mr. M. A. Taylor's motion 79.