Commons Sitting of 3 May 1830

MINUTES.
Mr. R. COLBORNE brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of the Election for the County of Limerick: the Committee reported that S. O'Grady, Esq. was not duly elected to serve as Knight for the County of Limerick; that J. H. M. Dawson, Esq. was duly elected, and ought to have been returned to serve as such Knight,—that neither the petition of J. H. M. Dawson, Esq. nor the opposition of S. O'Grady, Esq. was vexatious or frivolous.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUMES of the number of Officers and Professors at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, with their Salaries and Allowances, with the Charge for the Company of Gentlemen Cadets, their number in 1816, the number admitted since, and the number sent into the Artillery and Engineer Corps; also the Expense incurred for Buildings and Repairs at that Academy:—Of the Rates of Duties paid on Articles imported from the British Possessions cast of the Cape of Good Hope:—Of the number of Registers of Seisins established in Scotland, stating where each is kept:—Of the number of Hornings and Captions issued through the Signet-office, Edinburgh, in 1828 and 1829, with the Expense of each:—Of the number of Notaries Public admitted in Scotland in 1828 and 1829:—Of the Emoluments of the Clerks of the Peace; of the Keepers of the Registers of Seisins; and of the Sheriffs' Clerks of each of the Counties of Scotland, stating the sources whence their

323
incomes are derived, and whether or not the duty is performed by deputy. On the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of the Sums paid into the offices of First Fruits and Tenths during the last ten years, distinguishing the persons on whose account the payments were made:—Of the Sums of Money raised by Taxes, independent of Loans paid into the Exchequer of Great Britain and Ireland, from 1786 to 1801, and from 1S01 to 1816, distinguishing the amount raised each year.
Petitions presented. For the Repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Inhabitants of Yalden, Hunton, East Peckham, Hougham, and several other parishes in Kent. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Licensed Victuallers of Gravesend and Milton:—By Mr. BRAMSTON, from the Brewers of Saffron Walden; and the Licensed Victuallers of Uttersford, Clavering, and Freshwell:—By Mr. BASTARD, from the Proprietors of Licensed Houses in Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport:—By Mr. BUR-RKLI., from the Inhabitants of Brighton:—By Lord STANLEY, several Petitions from Licensed Victuallers in different parts of Lancashire:—By Mr. MUNDY, from certain Persons in Derby:—By Mr. CURTEIS, from the Licensed Victuallers of the Lower Division of the Lathe of Scray, Kent:—By Mr. EGERTON, from the Publicans of Macelesfield:—By Mr. HODSON, from the Inhabitants of Wigan:—-By Mr. HUME, from G. and W. Everith, in the County of Somerset:—By Mr. DENISON, from certain Householders of Epsom:—By Sir W. GUISE, from the Proprietors of Public Houses at Stroud:—And by Mr. LITTLETON, from the Publicans of Godmanchester and Huntingdon. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Sir W. GUISE, from the Inhabitants of Stroud and Nailsworth:—-And by Mr. FYLER, from the Inhabitants of Leominster. Against the Stamp Duty of 10 l. upon the Admission of a Member to any College of Surgeons, by Mr. W. DUNDAS from the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh. In favour of the Bill for the Relief of the Jews, from the Clergy and other Inhabitants of Ashton-under-Lyne, by Lord STANLEY. Against the Abolition of the Local Judicature of the County of Chester, by Mr. EGERTON, from the Merchants and Manufacturers and others of Chester and Stockport. For the Abolition of the East India Company's Monopoly, by the same Gentleman, and from the same Parties. Against the Duties on Coals carried Coastwise by Mr. LIDDELL, from the Ship-owners of Newcastle. For a Reduction of Taxation, by Sir W. GUISE, from the Inhabitants of Randwick. Against the Truck System, by Mr. LITTLETON, from the Inhabitants of Wellington, (Salop.)

BEER BILL.
Mr. Portmanasked, whether it was the intention of Government to prevent Beer sold by persons who might take out Excise licenses under the provisions of the Bill before the House from being drunk on the premises where it was sold?
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, that in the absence of some of his colleagues, who could more properly have answered the question of the hon. Member, he had no hesitation in declaring, that it certainly was the intention of Government to act upon the recommendation of the committee, and to permit Beer to be consumed on the premises where it should be sold. Government felt that if it should come to any other decision on the subject, it would be completely nullifying all the benefit to be derived from the project of throwing open the trade.
Mr. Heathcotesuggested, that no persons
324
should be permitted to open houses for the sale of Beer, until they produced sureties for their good conduct.
Mr. Benettwished a clause to be introduced in the Bill, rendering it compulsory on the keepers of the new public-houses to shut up soon at night, and open late in the morning.
Mr. George Dawsonthought, that hon. Members should reserve their suggestions until the Bill was in committee.
Mr. Portmansaid, that he would take the sense of the House with respect to the point to which he had referred on the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Brightsaid, that he considered the Bill before the House only a half-measure, because it did not repeal the duty on Beer. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to introduce a separate Bill to repeal the Beer duty.
Mr. GeorgeDawson replied, that such was the intention of Government.
Mr. Monckcould assure the members of his Majesty's Government, that several clauses in the Bill were viewed with much alarm, and certainly they would inflict serious injury on the brewers and publicans. The Bill in its present state, would be an act of spoliation and confiscation of individual property. He certainly should, when the Bill was in a committee, move a clause to restrain those persons who might take out Excise licenses, from allowing the Beer they sold to be drunk on their premises. It was the intention of the legislature to make the trade in Beer free, but not to create an unlimited number of alehouses.
Mr. Humetrusted, that the Government would persevere in carrying this measure through, which he conceived would be highly beneficial to the community, not-withstanding the opposition excited against it by interested persons. He admitted that private property might suffer to some extent; but not equal to the benefit which would accrue from destroying an odious monopoly.
Lord Stanleycould also inform the Ministers, that a considerable degree of alarm and apprehension prevailed in the county of Lancaster, where it was supposed that much mischief would ensue from these new houses not being under the control of the magistrates. He was of opinion that, as the Bill then stood, it would cause considerable inconvenience; and he hoped that it would receive several modifications before it was passed into a law.
Mr. Denisonexpressed his hope, that when the Bill came before a committee, some means might be found to prevent effectually those scenes of drunkenness and debauchery which it was to be apprehended would ensue, from one end of the kingdom to the other, if the Bill were passed in its present state.
Mr. Slaneyhoped, that such restrictions would be introduced as would prevent the occurrence of those scenes which many Gentlemen anticipated, if the measure were allowed to remain in its present shape; but he wished at the same time, that the spirit of free competition in the Beer-trade should be preserved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his object was, to have a free trade in Beer, without any restriction as to its being drunk on the premises where it was sold. At the same time, he was willing and ever anxious to hear any suggestions which would tend to make the Bill more palateable to those whose interests ought to be considered; so far as that could be done without infringing on the principle of the measure.

TRUCK-SYSTEM.
Lord Stanleyin presenting a Petition from the Manufacturers, Tradesmen, and others of Heaton Norris, against the Truck-system, stated, that this system gave great advantages to a few rich men, who acquired immense profits at the expense of the labourers. On a former occasion, he had supported a Bill brought in by a friend of his, to put a stop to this system; but the operation of that Bill was limited to two years. At present, the masters had joined the workmen, in complaining of this system; which was as injurious to the manufacturers who did not adopt it, as to the workmen who were its more immediate victims. He heartily concurred in the prayer of the Petition, and he would give the measure of his hon. friend, the member for Staffordshire, all the support in his power.
Mr. Brightsaid, that the benefits of the proposed measure were so obvious, that the lower classes, ranged under their natural protectors, the clergy of the country, were coming forward to entreat the legislature to support it. In his opinion, it would be impossible for the country to go on for any considerable period with the labourer deprived of his wages, and exposed to be continually fleeced by those who were bound to be his protectors. Who would believe, were it not explicitly stated, that when labourers who were in want of subsistence applied to their masters for wages,
326
they were paid in umbrellas, watches, and toys, which they could neither use themselves, nor convert into the means of subsistence. They were exposed, by such conduct, to the most severe distress, and it was high time that a law should be passed and enforced to put an end to these practices. By them, too, the retail trader was grievously injured: for the labourer, having no money, was obliged to have recourse to his master's warehouse for every thing—and if he went elsewhere to buy what he wanted, he was turned out of employment. To keep up this system, the masters combined in all the manufacturing districts, and reduced the men to slavery; at least, he could not call the man free who could not change his service, however ill he might be used, and who got for his labour no other reward than the master pleased. A remedy for this state of things, like the Bill of the hon. member for Staffordshire, was in his opinion much wanted. It was the opinion of Adam Smith, that the legislature was always too much influenced by the masters in making regulations respecting wages; and he might therefore say, that there was the best authority for the necessity of interference in favour of the men. There were numerous petitions also on the subject; and all the petitioners represented the system as a pressing evil. They did not complain from any far-fetched doctrines, or any metaphysical reasonings—they felt what they complained of, and they felt it most severely. One petition, which said that the petitioners had long looked upon this system with silent grief, stated, that the masters supplied their men with every thing, from a penny lace to a suit of clothes. This petition, which he lately presented, was from the mechanics of Nottingham; who were remarkable for their love of science, and for the improvements they had made in the arts. They were not persons of high rank, but they were sensible clever men. It was unnecessary, however, for him to go further into the case, particularly after the statements made by the hon. member for Staffordshire, to whom the country was deeply indebted. He had only been induced to trouble the House so far, on account of the vital importance of the question, he not having found on any previous occasion, a convenient opportunity of delivering his sentiments on the subject.
Sir John Newportthought, that the House would never get through its business, if the Members all chose to make long speeches, and get up debates on presenting

327
petitions. The very subject on which the hon. Member had just addressed the House, was to come before it that evening, in a regular manner, and though he did not like to interrupt him, he hoped that no other hon. Member would pursue the same course, as the hon. member for Bristol.
Mr. Littletonstated, that though the Bill stood for discussion that evening—it was not likely that he should be able to bring it before the House. As the means of carrying its provisions into effect were of great importance, it had been printed and circulated through the country, and so many suggestions had been received that it must be revised. He thought it would be most advisable to refer it to a committee up stairs; and he hoped the hon. member for Aberdeen would not oppose the motion he should make for that. There was no measure then under the consideration of the House of such importance as the bill for putting an end to the Truck-system.
Mr. Humewould not oppose that motion, not because he had abandoned his opposition to the Bill—but because it was his wish that the machinery of the Bill might he made as perfect as possible, before he stated his views on it. He was much surprised by the observations of the hon. member for Bristol, who seemed ready to legislate on any principle, or even on no principle at all. He would, however, wait till next week before he would state his reasons at length for opposing the Bill.
Mr. R. Kingconcurred in the views of the hon. member for Staffordshire, and he was sorry to be obliged to inform the House on the authority of his private letters, that the baneful Truck-system was extending to Ireland. A magistrate of the county of Cork, who lived in Bandon, and attended the petty sessions there, had informed him, that the operatives made numerous and distressing complaints, on account of this unjust practice. "A manufacturer," he says, "generally keeps a shop of dry goods, the poor workman is paid in full at one counter, but he is obliged to go to the other, (by a private understanding, that if he does not he will not be employed) where he receives a shawl, or a gown-piece, or a coat, or something that is useless to him, and at one-third more than he could buy it for, with his money at another shop; what he receives, he takes to the Pawn-office immediately, and pledges for half the amount he was obliged to give for it, and most probably he never afterwards redeems it—he being ground down in his weekly
328
pittance of subsistence money for his family, by the present low price of labour, on account of the great depression of trade. If he complains to a magistrate, he gets no more employment from the person complained against, nor will others trust him; thus, he must patiently suffer the robbery, or starve." This was a crying evil, and no injustice would be done to any one, if the legislature were to make the masters give the labourers their hire, of which it had been said of old, the labourer was worthy. The hon. Member's Bill was not to extend to Ireland, but he trusted the time was not far distant when that would be the case, and when the laws of the two countries, would, in every respect, be assimilated and administered alike, and then, and not till then, would the advantages of the Union be realized, and the two countries would be one.
Mr. O'Connellhoped the hon. Member did not wish for an assimilation of taxation, as that would only aggravate the evils of Ireland.
Petition to be printed.

TAX ON STEAM-CARRIAGES.
Lord Stanleypresented a petition from certain owners of stage-coaches, calling on Parliament either to repeal the act by which licenses are required to be taken out by stage-coach proprietors, or to extend its provisions to carriages carrying passengers or goods for hire, and moved by Steam. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce any provision with respect to this subject?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was his intention to propose a measure by which stage-coaches, whether drawn by horses or impelled by steam, would be placed on an equality.
Petition to be printed.

FORGERY.
Mr. Liddellpresented a petition from the Clergy, Bankers, Merchants, and Inhabitants of North Shields, against the proposed alteration in the law relative to Forgery. The petitioners were of opinion that the bill, if passed into a law in its present form, would defeat the object which it was meant to effect, and, instead of decreasing, would increase the crime of Forgery.
Sir J. Macintoshsaid, he believed, and indeed he knew, that this Petition would be followed by many others of a similar nature. He gave notice, that whenever the proposition to commit the Forgery-bill should be

329
brought forward, he, or some of his hon. friends who possessed greater ability, meant to move, on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair, that it should be an instruction to the committee to introduce such mitigatory amendments as would bring the measure to the standard of effective justice, which he believed was the object that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it had in view. Being on his legs, he begged leave to observe, that he had received no information which would authorise him to postpone the second reading of the bill relative to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Madras beyond Wednesday, for which day it stood. If, between this time and that, a hope should be held out to him that an early day would be granted to him for moving the second reading, and he thought the discussion would not exceed three hours, he should feel most happy to consult the convenience of gentlemen, and to postpone it. If, however, no hope of that sort were held out, he should be under the necessity of bringing the question forward on Wednesday next, however unpopular that day might be. He believed he was now the only suitor, except one, who requested that a short time should, at an early day, be allowed him for the discussion of this measure, and he made the application more for the convenience of others than for his own. Unless, however, he received some assurance that this indulgence would be extended to him, he must move the second reading of the bill on Wednesday.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was in such a situation, that however anxious he was to comply with the wishes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not make any promise on the subject. There was so much public business to be proceeded with, that it was not in his power to give any pledge to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Petition laid on the Table.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
The question was put, that the Speaker leave the Chair.
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, that any observer of the proceedings of the House, not thoroughly acquainted with its constitution, might sometimes be surprised at the manner in which Members voted away the money of their constituents. Most hon. Gentle-men, when the question of Supply came
330
before them, took their departure, and the few who remained yawned, and exhibited other unequivocal symptoms of weariness, amounting to something very like disgust. The observer, under these circumstances, would find it difficult to reconcile what he saw with that boasted sympathy of the representative with the wants and wishes of the people, which was attributed to the House by its too zealous admirers. He was led to this observation by the sort of official sneer with which the useful labours of the hon. member for Aberdeen were generally greeted, especially on a recent occasion, when he was almost censured for his activity—just as if activity in relieving the public burthens was not the most important duty of the Members of that House, and was to be construed into an imputation. But how the Estimates could be properly-investigated without patience and activity on the part of the Representatives of the people he did not know. Finance was certainly not a very inviting subject—it was difficult to frame an amusing argument upon questions of two and two; figures of rhetoric had little connection with figures of arithmetic; trope, figure, and metaphor, did not accord well with pounds, shillings, and pence, and eloquence never harmonized with calculations. Hence it always happened and would then happen, did he consent to the Speaker leaving the Chair, that the Estimates were usually discussed and examined by a select few: the same instances of abuse were quoted, and the same explanations offered, year after year, with as little advantage in the last as in the first. Over and over again it had been recommended that Ministers should recast the Estimates during the Recess, and over and over again they had politely stated that they would attend to the recommendation. This course would, no doubt, be adopted in the present Session; but as soon as it was at an end, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be sure to forget his promise, and next Session all would remain to be done over again, in the very same way in which it had been so often done before—the same financial farce would be repeated by the same actors, and probably with little variation in the parts. He therefore requested those who heard him to pause, in, order to consider whether it would not be a much wiser course to refer the Estimates to a Select Committee, by which they might be deliberately examined, if necessary, with the assistance and explanation

331
of oral evidence. As it might be required of him to state some case, in order to show the necessity of such a proceeding, he would notice a few of the items in the Estimates; not because he would say, ex his disce omnes, but because he wished to show that there was some ground for further inquiry. He would take the first item of the first page of the Miscellaneous Estimates—"Public Works"—for which the sum of 32,000 l. was now required, when only 28,000 l. was asked last year. Thus in this happy year of retrenchment, economy, and relief from taxation, 4,000 l. more were demanded than last year. Such an addition might perhaps be justified, and it might be described as intended to promote the national advantage, but the present was not a time to consider what was advantageous, or even what was useful, but what was necessary: and the point of absolute necessity ought always to be established before a single shilling was voted. An account had been laid before the Finance Committee of the charge for Public Works for three years—1803, 1828, and 1829.

In 1803 it was

£40,000

In 1828

27,000

In 1829

28,000

and yet at this moment the sum was swelled to 32,000 l. This was one item on which explanation ought to be given before a committee. Another circumstance deserved notice; a Return had been made of all houses or apartments occupied at the public expense, as the residences of public officers, &c. and the House would be surprised to hear, that including repairing, furnishing, &c. it amounted, in five years, to no less a sum than 125,688 l. This was another item which he thought the people would not be grievously dissatisfied to see explained. Reverting to the head of Public Works, he might remark, that our national buildings were not remarkable for their good taste; it could not be said that they were ornamental as well as expensive; in fact, there was not a city of the world which was so disgraced as the metropolis of this country, both by the edifices themselves, and the silly cost at which deformity was purchased. Passing over the Estimates for the Harbours of Portpatrick, Donaghadee, and George 4th leaving these subjects to his hon. friend behind him, he would refer briefly to the expenditure for Windsor Castle. He was aware of the difficulty of dealing with that subject but he was also convinced that no one shewed more urgently the necessity of further
332
investigation. The repairs had been commenced when what was called a God-send had been received from Austria, and Ministers really did not know what to do with the money. It was resolved, however, to apply part to the building of churches, and part to the repair of palaces; and 300,000 l. were appropriated to Windsor Castle. It was then more than hinted that a larger sum than that would not be expended; and Lord Goderich, then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that "He had no hesitation in saying that nothing was contemplated, or could reasonably be contemplated, with regard to Windsor Castle, which would cause the expense to go beyond 300,000 l." When Lord Farnborough, then Sir Charles Long, was asked how it was possible to control the outlay, he had replied, that nothing was more easy, as it would be the duty of the architect to bring his estimate within a specified sum. What was the result? The original estimate of 300,000 l. was first increased to 500,000 l., and afterwards to 644,000 l.; and in the year 1828, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed, that 50,000 l. more would be necessary to complete the undertaking. In the year 1829, Parliament was called upon to vote 800,000 l. for the furniture and improvements of Windsor Castle. They were now called on for 900,000 l., which was triple the original estimate, though Lord Goderich told them, at the time he made his motion in that House upon the subject, that he could not contemplate the possibility of increase. But that vote would not be the last, for it had been stated in the Finance Committee, that the sum required to make Windsor Castle a fit residence for the Monarchs of England would be 1,200,000 l. Did not that, then, supply ground for minute and instant inquiry by a committee up stairs? He believed there were not many Members in that House, who allowed themselves to think, who did not feel the necessity of an inquiry. He would then proceed to the third point—the building of Churches in the West Indies. In the year 1827, 8,000 l. was voted: in 1828—annus mirabilis—only 2,500 l; in 1829, 5,000 l. was granted; and in 1830, 6,000 l. was proposed to be granted; that was another case which he conceived called for inquiry. He now proposed to come to No. 2—the deficiency of fees. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen had often called the attention of the House to the subject, and the Finance Committee had also done something, but not enough.

333
In the year 1827 the fees of the Home Office amounted to 20,000 l.the Foreign Office amounted to 8,000 l.—those of the Colonial amounted to 3,700 l.; these items were added together, and the sum divided. Now that, he thought, was an unfair and unjust arrangement, and one which he conceived required revision, and ought to come under the consideration of a committee. With No. 3 he would allow the Government to do as they pleased, with one exception—the Refuge for the Destitute; the charge for that was indeed only 3,000 l. for the present year, but it had been 4,000 l. and 5,000 l. He did not quarrel with the institution, but he objected to its being supported at the expense of Government. It was generally found, when any establishment was supported for a time by voluntary subscription, that as soon as Government came to its aid with public grants, then private subscriptions began to fall off. The case of the Irish charitable institutions afforded the most striking confirmation of that assertion. No. 4 contained a most melancholy list, not one of the items of which ought to be passed over without a minute inquiry—every one of them deserving the most serious and deliberate attention. He could not go through all the particulars; did he attempt to do so he should only weary the House, but he thought that very circumstance afforded the strongest evidence that a Committee of Inquiry was demanded. There were the expenses of captured negroes, of commissioners for preventing an illegal traffic in slaves, of special commissions, and of Consuls-general to the new Stales of South America, all included in this list. To most of the items he should only allude thus generally; but the consular system, which was now placed upon a new footing, deserved some remarks. Instead of being paid, as heretofore, by fees, salaries were given to the Consuls, and for this purpose the sum of.30,000 l. was demanded. Up to the year 1826 the total amount for Consuls was 49,000 l.; it had since been increased, and it now was three times that amount. How long that system would go on it was not for him to determine; but he thought the statement of the fact strengthened the reasons he had already urged in favour of a Committee of Inquiry. Every person with whom he had communicated, preferred the old system to the new one, because it insured the despatch of business. The new system was adopted because the fees were in some cases enormous; but the proper
334
plan would have been to regulate the fees. He now came to the last paper; he rejoiced that he had done so, and he had no doubt that the House would rejoice at that circumstance too. No. 5 involved the question how far the Colonies ought to pay their own expenses, at what time Sierra Leone should be abandoned, and various other questions of that kind; and he therefore wished to decline entering into any discussion about the Colonies; but the reasons which weighed with him in coming to that resolution, were the very reasons why a committee should be granted. The next point he should refer to, was the grant to the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. In 1814, the grant was 3,600 l. and from that period to the present it had gradually increased, until the grant now before the House amounted to 16,182 l.; and the whole sum paid during a period of sixteen years was not less than 200,000 l. for the propagation of Christian knowledge in foreign countries, and chiefly in our own Colonies. He objected to this the more particularly, because the established reformed religion was not, in many of our Colonies, the predominant religion, but the very reverse. Looking through the whole of those items, it was not to be questioned that they were such as demanded a Committee of Inquiry. Was such a course without precedents? Quite the contrary, numerous precedents might be found in its favour. A committee had been appointed to examine the Irish Estimates; why not the English?—the case was as strong for the one as for the other. This he knew, that when the committee did go into the Irish Estimates, jobs were discovered of which the Ministers themselves had not the slightest notion. He appealed to such of his Majesty's Ministers as were members of that committee, than whom, he cheerfully confessed, he never knew honester or more zealous members of a Committee. He appealed also to the Noble Lord who was chairman of that committee, if his statements on the subject were not well founded with respect to the extraordinary jobs discovered through the industry of the members of that committee? It had been suggested to him not to take the division on the general question of the appointment of a committee; neither did he propose to divide the House affirmatively or negatively with respect to particular votes, but when each in succession came before the committee, he intended to move its postponement, with a view to the whole being

335
referred to a committee up stairs. He would not trouble the House then with any further observations, but he would call upon hon. Members, to ask themselves how they proposed to face their constituents, if they did not vote for inquiry into the Miscellaneous Estimates? The hon. and learned member for Clare whispered "Such of them as have constituents," which was a proper limitation. There was much justice in the remark, for many of them had no constituents, and it was to be observed that many of the supporters of his Majesty's Government were amongst the number of those who had none. Nothing could be more true than that amongst those supporters there was a sad scarcity of Members who had constituents. The hon. member for Westminster had called the present a good weak Government. But let it be good or let it be weak on this occasion, he did not care a farthing for the principle, so long as it acquiesced in the proposal he had made.
Lord Rancliffesaid, he would support the hon. Member in objecting to the items he had mentioned.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that his hon. friend had gone so much into details, that he thought it would be better to answer his observations on each item, as it came before the Committee.
Lord Althorpconcurred in the observations of his hon. friend, and thought that the principle upon which Government proceeded was wrong. Public works, if they were really required, ought to be carried into effect at once, and not executed piece-meal, from a false economy; on the contrary, if they were not required, they ought never to be commenced under any pretence whatever. By not attending to these principles, immense sums had been wasted. The Breakwater at Plymouth—a really useful undertaking—had, by being carried on through so long a period of time, been made unnecessarily expensive to the public. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it would be better to allow the House to go into a committee, postponing such items as were objectionable, for the purpose of its being examined into by a committee up stairs.
Sir John Newportsaid, that he also concurred in the propriety of first going into a Committee of Supply, and then, referring every item of the Estimates that was in the least objectionable to a committee up stairs. The House had been repeatedly drawn into voting money, under the idea
336
of doing things by degrees; and the consequence had been, that the extent of the work had turned out much greater than the House had any right to expect. Another strong ground of objection was, that money was frequently disbursed before any proposal whatever had been brought before Parliament. This had been very much the case with respect to the works of Canada, which had been carried on to an immense extent before Parliament heard anything about them. In other times suck conduct would have subjected Ministers to the severe censure of the House.
Mr. O'Connellcomplained of the very heavy charges incurred in some of those Estimates. At a time when taxation was reduced in England, but when it was increased in Ireland, when great distress prevailed in that country, and was every day becoming more severely felt, it was intolerable that a sum of 160,000 l. should be asked for works in Canada, and 100,000 l. in addition to former grants for Windsor; while at the same time upwards of 300,000 l. increased taxes were levied on Ireland. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to the House whether these Estimates ought to be voted without previous examination.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that a Committee of Supply was not the place for entering into the facts of a case; one assertion was always met by another, and nothing further could be got at. He contended that the sums proposed to be voted under the heads of the five numbers now to be submitted to the Committee, amounting to 1,625,000 l., were grossly extravagant. The noble Lord had stated that the objectionable votes ought to be set aside and referred to a committee. He considered every one of those votes objectionable, and would have the whole of them set aside for examination. Last year, the Miscellaneous Estimates amounted to two Bullions and a half, which before the French war would have covered half the expenses of the country, with the exception of the interest of the Debt. The Civil Estimates appeared to him to be as extravagant as the Military, and he therefore contended that both ought to go to a committee up stairs. He thought the example set in this respect by the United States of America was worthy of imitation,—that of referring every estimate for a public work to a select committee before it was submitted to the legislature for adoption. The select committee had power to examine all documents,

337
and the officers by whom the work was to be executed, and the result was, that no works were carried on which were not proved to be of great public utility. Here, however, an expense of nine millions and a half, under the Duke of Richmond, had been incurred, when it was not expected that the charge would have been one million. So at Sheerness, in the building of the Arsenal, a vast deal of money had been spent to no effect—or, as he should call it, wasted. Let the House sec what was the result of this difference of attention to the public expenditure. The United States, in 1817, had a debt of from 90 to 100 millions of dollars, of which, by good management, they had since nearly cleared off the whole, so that in two years they would be free from debt; but since 1817, our National Debt had remained unreduced. In his opinion, the whole Estimates ought to be divided into sixteen or twenty parts, for as many committees, in order that the House might have the benefit of their inquiries. At present the whole ceremony was a perfect farce, and it was a mere mockery to say that money was conscientiously voted. On occasions when such enormous sums were granted, it was difficult to obtain as many county Members as were present that evening, to vote about a mere private harbour bill. The fact was, that little or no attention was paid by the majority of the House to matters of public expenditure. Members took the items as Ministers proposed them, and it was not owing to the care of the representatives of the people that the expenses of the Government were not still greater. The country Gentlemen, who had the greatest influence in the House, were for the most part careless on such matters, and seemed to think little of their constituents. There were a few Members who endeavoured to obtain reduction, but of what avail were their exertions when the landed interest, which ruled that House, did not support them in their efforts? He hoped, as there would soon be a new election—[Cries of "Order".] He was quite in order. It was the hon. Member who cried "Order" who was disorderly. He was perfectly justified in alluding to a new election. We were now in the fifth year of a Parliament, which it was known was seldom allowed to sit longer than six years, and on an average not five; but come when the election might,—if that would suit the hon. Member better,—he hoped that those constituents whose interests were now neg-
338
lected would bear in mind the conduct of their present representatives with respect to the expenditure of the country. After again pressing the advantage of previous inquiry on the Estimates, the hon. Member observed, that he would not oppose going into the Committee of the whole House, but he would object to every vote which he thought extravagant.
Sir M. W. Ridleycould not consent to the proposition of sending the Estimates to a select committee up stairs, because he thought the responsibility of Ministers ought not to be thus delegated to a body of men who were not responsible. Where inquiry was shown to be necessary on a particular vote he would not object, but he was opposed to the principle of sending the whole Estimates for inquiry, which ought to be presented to the House on the responsibility of Ministers. He was not disposed to follow the example of America, for from what he heard of the proceedings with respect to public works there, he was not disposed to think them very free from jobbing and corruption.
Colonel Davieswould be glad if his hon. friend (Sir M. W. Ridley) would point out any one instance of practical responsibility on the part of Ministers. Let the House look at the whole conduct of Government—at its foreign and domestic policy, carried on against the opinions of the people,—at Ministers coming down to that House, proposing and carrying any measure they pleased,—at their disregard for the recommendations of committees, and their continuance of appointments of which those committees had recommended the abolition—and then say what became of responsibility. When they thought themselves weak, then, indeed, they were all candour and deference to the opinion of the public; but when they saw any symptoms of division or doubt in their adversaries, then they speedily assumed again their tone of arrogance and defiance. Let them only look at the Lieutenant-generalcy of the Ordnance. Twice had a Committee recommended the abolition of that office, and still was it kept up, though he had no hesitation in pronouncing it a most gross job.
The House then went into the Committee of Supply.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, before addressing the Committee relative to the items which he should have the honour to propose to them, he would make a few remarks on what had fallen from his hon. friend (Mr.

339
R. Gordon.) In the first place he had complained that those who opposed themselves to the Ministry were sneered at. Now he thought that the hon. member for Mont-rose himself must admit that that was not the case. He therefore abjured the insinuation that had been thrown out. With respect to his intended motion, to refer the Estimates to a Committee up stairs, he had laid us little ground for its adoption, and given as few reasons in its support, as he had ever heard for any proposition in that House. He for one would oppose it, because he concurred with the hon. member for Newcastle, that to send Estimates to a committee up stairs would be to give up the responsibility of Ministers; and if he had had any doubt on the subject, it would have been removed by his experience of what took place in the committee on the Irish Estimates, for he saw on that occasion that the items were not examined with half the care with which they would have been considered in a Committee of Supply. He was surprised at the want of accuracy of his hon. friend in some of the statements which he had made. He stated that in the first item of Estimate No. 1, the charge for repairs of public buildings, furniture for public offices, &c., there was an increase of 4,500 l. since last year, and on this he laid great stress. He was surprised at this want of accuracy in his hon. friend. The vote was 32,575 l. this year, but there was no increase from the last year's Estimate. He had not the Estimate of last year by him, but he had the Act of Appropriation, in which the sum was given.
Mr. R. Gordon, interrupting the hon. Member, said, that to save him trouble, he would state, that he was right as to the increase, but was mistaken as to the date. He should have said increased in 1829, as compared with 1828.
Mr. G. Dawsonwould state the cause of that difference: the increase over the Estimate of 1828 was from having added the amount of taxes for paving and lighting and watching the different public-offices and houses of Parliament. In reference to these objections, it was only due to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, that since his accession to office, no public work had been undertaken of which an estimate was not previously made, in order to form a judgment as to the expenditure it was likely to induce. Since the year 1824, the Miscellaneous Estimates had been gradually declining in amount, and
340
they did not now exceed 1,935,000 l., in all, being a decrease of 310,000 l. on those of 1829. The hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving that a sum not exceeding 32,575 l. be granted to his Majesty for repairs, &c. of public buildings, for furniture, &c. for the various public-offices and departments, and for certain charges for Lighting, Watching, &c. defrayed by the Office of Works, for the year 1830."
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, he could only repeat the statement he had already made, which was correct in every particular but one. He should have taken the year 1828 instead of 1829. The item ought certainly to be referred to a committee above stairs.
Mr. Dawsonobserved, that a saving in respect to furniture for public-offices, and repairs amounting to 12,000 l., had been made in the Miscellaneous Estimates of this year.

ST. JAMES'S PARK.
Mr. Hobhousewished to ask the noble Lord opposite whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to grant the public access to St. James's Park by Waterloo-place? He had on a former occasion stated, that if they did not do so, he should feel it his duty to move an address to the Crown. Existing circumstances prevented him from carrying that now into effect, but although deferred for the present, it should assuredly be fulfilled in the event of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests persevering in their determination. That public works should be exempted from public inspection, was a principle at once unconstitutional, unjustifiable, and repugnant to common sense. It was in the highest degree absurd, to pretend that Government should peremptorily decide on the mode in which the public works of a great and powerful metropolis, like London, were to be carried on, without any reference to the opinions or wishes of the inhabitants. Were their complaints to be silenced with the answer, that they were not entitled to exercise any control over matters in which they were so essentially interested,—that this was not a fit subject for interference or inquiry, but should be left to the responsibility of men in office? He quite agreed with the hon. member for Cricklade, in thinking that a fairer question could not be laid before a committee, and he should vote with him accordingly. The object, however, which he had more immediately in view, was the entrance to St. James's Park, already alluded to, with respect to which he would

341
put it to the candour of the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, whether the public had not at least been under an impression that the privilege required was guaranteed and ensured to them by former declarations? Since the subject had been last discussed, he had carefully examined what the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arbuthnot) were represented to have said on the occasion referred to, and their expressions appeared to him to justify and induce the expectation that it was intended to grant such access to the park as the public now demanded, in which opinion several other hon. Gentlemen decidedly concurred. But even admitting that the imputed promise had never been conveyed, was the fact conclusive upon a question such as this? These parks were created for the purpose, it was true, of adding dignity and beauty to the palace in which the Sovereign resided; but they were equally intended for the enjoyment, the salubrity, and the comfort of the metropolis over which he reigned. It was truly not a little extraordinary, that the hints which had been already thrown out should have proved so ineffectual in the quarter where it was hoped they would have found a somewhat different reception. But architectural extravagancies and whimsical projects of perverted taste, or unthrifty ostentation, had superseded the remonstrances of the public. One day a square palace was to be pulled down, and the next a round one must be erected. In the words of the poet—
"Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis."
If the wishes of the public should not be respected, he was fully resolved to persevere in his purpose, and move an address to the Crown upon the subject, as soon as he could do so with propriety. The parks were virtually the property of the people of the metropolis, and were only by courtesy considered as appurtenances of the Crown. They paid for them, and possessed, therefore, the best right to their enjoyment. Under such circumstances, it was sufficiently vexatious to see so arbitrary a violation of their privileges united to the manifest disfigurement of an ornamental part of the city. Thousands of loads of earth—he did not know how many—were collected into a mass, for no other apparent purpose except to deform and render unsightly what was otherwise magnificent and grand. Pall-mall and the Park were now sunk out of all proportion, while the stately old trees were diminished, as had been well observed in the news-
342
paper, to the appearance of stunted goose-berry-bushes, out of keeping with the scenery around them. One part of the improvements, falsely so called, was to render a fine street a receptacle for filth and nastiness, for Pall-mall had been converted into what he might call a ditch for Regent-street. Old columns, which had been hitherto gracefully disposed in their proper places, were now so located, as at every step to remind one of the Italian's exclamation on seeing the columns at Carlton-House, Belle colonne! che fatevi qui? It had been alleged that some gentlemen who had purchased large houses on the terrace were unfavourable to the wished-for entrance, and had exerted themselves to prevent its being accomplished. This representation, however, was the reverse of the truth, as he had had the honour to receive letters from some of those respectable individuals, expressing themselves equally anxious with their fellow-citizens that this access to the Park might be permitted. When the time came that he could move an address to the Crown without impropriety, he repeated, it was his determined resolution to do so. To those who said that he was making much ado about a trifle—the erection of a gateway—he would reply in the words of a celebrated nobleman, when there was a project on foot for excluding the public altogether from the parks, and who being asked what would be the expense, replied—"that it would not cost above three Crowns."
Mr. R. Gordonthen moved, that the vote should be 10,000 l., to be taken on account, and that the item should be referred to a committee of inquiry above stairs.
A conversation ensued as to the form of proceeding.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he could see no objection to the items being deferred to a future occasion, on the same principle that the preamble to a bill was disposed of.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the present case, and that of the preamble of a bill, were not at all similar. The preamble of a bill was postponed for the purpose of passing it after the clauses of the bill had been discussed and agreed to; but no other opportunity might be afforded for passing a resolution in the Committee of Supply, if it were once passed over. Adverting to the vote itself, as compared with that of 1829, he maintained that the arrangements which had been made by Government had been productive of a large saving of the public money, amounting to

343
above 5,000 l. Part of the expense complained of arose from the improvements at the Banqueting-hall, Whitehall, which were rendered necessary by the dilapidated state of the building. He would repeat then, what he had stated on a former occasion, namely—that all the recent alterations in the park had been made with a view to the public benefit, and that no indisposition existed on the part of the official authorities to promote still further the public convenience. Till the hon. member for Westminster's intended motion on the subject was substantively before the House, he should abstain from entering more fully into detail. On that occasion, he was confident he should convince hon. Members that there existed no just ground of complaint on the part of the public, on account of the recent alterations in the park, which did not curtail the privileges of the public.
Mr. R. Gordonhad heard the vaunts of the right hon. Gentleman, that the public interest had not been overlooked in the plan of the improvements still in progress in St. James's-park with no little surprise; for one might infer, from the right hon. Gentleman's tone, that permission to frequent the parks was conferred by the Crown on the public as a boon. He begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who paid for the improvements in the parks? Was it not the public? He would further ask, who had a right to have their interests considered in the plan of those improvements, if not that public which paid for them? Within the last five years, he repeated, not less than 125,000 l. had been expended in the mere repairs of public works—a sum which neither that House, nor the public, would complain of, if any visible advantage could be pointed out as a result of the expenditure.
Mr. Arbuthnotbegged leave to remind the Committee, that he had, in his evidence before the committee on public works, of which the hon. member for Dorsetshire was chairman, stated, that an ingress by a flight of steps, or otherwise, into the park from Pall-mall, constituted no part of the plan of the recent alterations in the neighbourhood of the site of Carlton Palace. While he stated this he was free to admit that he also added, that no indisposition existed in the minds of those who acted under the Treasury to consult public convenience by having such an ingress. He was sure that his right hon. friend had not meant to say, that the public had not a right to frequent the parks—and to share
344
in all the recreations that were purchased by public money. It was his wish, when he undertook the improvements of the parks, to obtain for the public, every possible accommodation; but he was not at liberty to promise, that the opening required should be made.
Sir M. W. Ridleycould also inform the Committee, that no promise had been given by the Government, that a passage should be made for the public in the place alluded to by hon. Members. It was, on the contrary, expressly stipulated in the leases of the houses which had been erected on the line of terrace from Carlton-gardens towards St. James's Palace, that no thoroughfare of the kind mentioned, public or private, should be permitted into the Park at the cud of Waterloo-place. And when a private entrance was proposed, it was very properly refused, on the ground that if there should be any ingress at that place it should be one for the public. There were circumstances of a peculiar nature connected with the matter at present, which must operate to prevent any further proceedings in it on the part of the Woods and Forests. He need not do more than allude to those circumstances, as every hon. Member, he was sure, understood what he meant. With respect to the hon. member for Westminster's animadversions on the present arrangements in St. James's-park, all he should say was, that they formed no part of the plan of the architect, and that the blame—for at least some of the defects complained of—lay with the Treasury.
Mr. Humesuggested the propriety of postponing the vote, on the ground that it was contrary to a recommendation of the Finance Committee—that no residences should be allowed to public functionaries, except they were essential to their duly discharging their public duty. If the expenditure of the public money in public works were properly inquired into, he was sure it would be found that not less than a half or even three-fourths of the sum laid out in official residences might be advantageously saved to the public.
Mr. Protheroewished then to say, that there was great room for improvement in the arrangements concerning the Records. There was a valuable collection at no great distance from that House that was at any time liable to be destroyed by fire.
Lord Miltonwas surprised to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the doctrine that the public had no right to dictate or interfere with the arrangements of

345
the Crown property. Such doctrine was by no means in keeping with the principles which led the House of Brunswick to the Throne of this Realm, and could only be acted on when feudal usages were those by which the Monarch held and managed the Crown property. He maintained that constitutionally the people had as much right to interfere with the present arrangements in the Park as with that of any other portion of what was called Crown property, from which the Crown derived no revenue, and which, in fact, belonged to the public. He admitted that the greatest deference was due to the comforts conveniences and wishes of the Monarch, but he could never allow it to be asserted unconradicted in his presence, that the public had not a full and complete right to exercise whatever control might be necessary over all the property of the Crown.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not deny the right of the public in the sense alluded to by the noble Lord, and only contended that a certain decorous deference was due to the Crown in the management of the Crown property.
Lord Miltonexpressed himself satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation.
Mr. Hobhouse, in reply to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, begged to say, that whether a passage into the Park from Waterloo-place were or were not a part of the original plan, a passage had been actually made which was subsequently closed up, as every hon. Member might any day satisfy himself. The matter, however, was then at the disposal of the Committee; let it vote in a majority against the grant as it stood, and the Park would be thrown open; if did not, the promises which had been made to the country, on which some persons had actually set about building, would be unfulfilled.
The Committee divided.
The numbers were—for the Resolution 139; Against it 123,—Majority in favour of the Resolution 16.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, Lord

Brougham H.

Baring, F.

Brownlow, C.

Baring, B.

Burden, Sir F.

Bastard, C. P.

Calvert, C.

Bankes, H.

Carter, B.

Belgrave, Lord

Calthorpe, Hon. F. G.

Bernal, R.

Cavendish, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Clive, E. B.

Birch, J.

Clements, Lord

346

Clinton, F.

Morpeth, Lord

Cholmeley, M. J.

Nugent, Lord

Colborne, N. R.

Newport, Sir J.

Cripps, J.

Osborne, Lord F.

Crompton, S.

Ord, W.

Davenport, E. D.

O'Connell, D.

Dawson, A.

Parnell, Sir H.

Davies, Colonel

Palmer, F.

Denison, W.

Pendarvis, E. W.

Dickinson, W.

Palmer, R.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Poyntz, W. S.

Easthope, J.

Power, R.

Ebrington, Lord

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Ellison, C.

Pryse, P.

Euston, Lord

Price, Sir R.

Fane, J.

Philips, G. R.

Fergusson, R. C.

Protheroe, E.

Fazakerley, I. N.

Rumbold, C.

Fitzgibbon, Colonel

Rancliffe, Lord

French, A.

Rickford, W.

Fyler, T. B.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Gordon, R.

Robarts, A.

Grattan, J.

Robinson, Sir G.

Graham, Sir J.

Rochford, G.

Guise, Sir W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Guest, J. J.

Smith, V.

Harvey, D. W.

Smith, W.

Howard, H.

Sykes, D.

Howick, Lord

Stewart, Lord J.

Honywood, W. P.

Taylor, M. A.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Tomes, J.

Hulse, Sir C.

Trant, W. H.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Thomson, P.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Tufton, Hon. H.

Knight, R.

Vaughan, Sir R.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Kennedy, T. F.

Warburton, H.

Kekewich, S. T.

Western, C. C.

Killeen, Lord

Westenra, Hon. H. R.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Webb, E.

Langston, J. H.

Wilson, Sir R.

Lambert, J. S.

Wilbraham, G.

Lennard, T. B.

Williams, O.

Labouchere, H.

Whitbread, W.

Lawley, F.

White, Colonel

Lester, B.

Wood, C.

Marshall W.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Maberly, John

TELLERS.

Maitland, E. F.

Hume, J.

Maxwell, J.

Dawson, G. R. PAIRED OFF.

Martin, John

Marjoribanks, S.

Portman, E. B.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Waithman, Alderman

Milton, Lord

SHUT OUT DURING THE DIVISION.

Mildmay Paulet,

Mostyn, Sir T.

Wood, J.

Monck, J. B.

Sebright, Sir J. S.

7,000 l. for the works executing at Port Patrick Harbour,
8,000 l. for the works executing at Donaghadee Harbour,
20,000 l. for carrying on the works at the Royal Harbour of George the Fourth, at Kingstown were also voted.

WINDSOR CASTLE.
100,000 l. was then proposed to defray the expenses of the alterations and improvements of Windsor Castle.
Mr. R. Gordonopposed the Vote; he complained that the original estimate submitted to the House had been 300,000 l. It was subsequently raised to 640,000 l.; and in 1828, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that in candour he was obliged to state that 50,000 l. more would be wanted to complete the works making it then nearly 700,000 l. Another 100,000 l. was voted last year, making it 800,000 l. and now it was proposed, without any inquiry or investigation, to make the grant 900,000 l., and this too without any pledge that the present demand would be the last; or, in fact, that.300,000 l. or 400,000 l. more would not be wanted. Encouraged then by the division on the last question, he would now move that the sum of 100 l. be granted to his Majesty for the purposes of defraying the expenses of the alterations and improvements of Windsor Castle.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that many hon. Members who had Irish constituents, voted for the last grant, and this at a moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had it in contemplation to impose 300,000 l. additional taxes upon Ireland. He now called upon those Gentlemen to oppose this vote, for if they did so successfully, there might be 100,000 l. of taxation spared to Ireland. It might be very ridiculous, but he was most happy to say, that the opposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme of taxation was progressing in that country amongst persons of all parties and persuasions. On this ground, if he had no other, he would vote against the grant. The circumstance, however, of the original estimate of 300,000 l. having been so greatly exceeded, afforded abundant reason for opposing such profligate expenditure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the measure of repairing and improving the ancient seat of the Kings of England was, when first proposed, popular, not only in Parliament, but throughout the country. He stated that the causes which had led to the estimates being exceeded had been frequently detailed to the House; and he observed, that there was infinitely more difficulty in calculating the expenses required for repairing an old building than in deciding upon those which might be necessary for the erection of a new one. He could declare that many unexpected diffi-
348
culties had arisen in the progress of the works; and in conclusion, submitted to the House, that the only question to decide was, whether the building should be suffered to remain unfinished, a disgrace to the country, or whether they would consent to the grant which had been just proposed. Buildings would not endure for ever, but must have extensive reparations. He believed that the mode in which these reparations had been executed at Windsor Castle was satisfactory to persons who were competent judges. He was confident that the people of this country did not grudge the expenditure which had taken place upon that building. He was equally sure they would not be dissatisfied with the amount of expense which might be necessary for its completion; and on every ground he thought it was impossible for the House to refuse this vote.
Mr. Broughamsaid, I rise with unfeigned reluctance to express my opinions on this subject. For reasons to which I will not now more particularly allude, there is no time at which I would more willingly find it possible, if it were consistent with my public duty, not to say one word upon the question. But I cannot do so, and I shall, therefore, briefly and simply as possible, state the reasons why I, for one, shall vote for the motion of my hon. friend. If I could think that the question now submitted to this Committee was what the right hon. Gentleman has once and again stated it to be, I would vote for him. If it were put to me, "Shall the present buildings at Windsor Castle, with all the improvements which have been undertaken and are in part executed on this ancient and magnificent structure, the residence of our Kings-be completed, or shall they stop short where they now are?"—I say, if the question put to me were merely this, I should not hesitate before I said that these buildings ought to be completed. But I take that not to be the question. I take the question to be, whether we shall vote 100,000 l. in addition to the 800,000 l. already voted, before we ascertain how that 800,000 l. has already been bestowed; before we ascertain whether the 100,000 l. which is now required in addition to the 800,000 l. will be found sufficient to complete the structure, nay, before even any one man has stood up in this House and stated that the 100,000 l. now-required will be sufficient to complete these works. Let the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure us—let any one tell me that this sum will be sufficient—

349
that it will enable the architect to finish the buildings, and I may then be disposed to vote it, though in the present state of the country I might grudge the expenditure of such a sum. But I am called on to vote this money without the prospect—nay, without the hope—that it will he enough; and the next time that a Committee of Supply sits in this House, I may he told that the structure is still unfinished, and I may again he asked whether I will allow it, for the want of 100,000 l. more, to remain unfinished. I differ, Sir, from the right hon. Gentleman, in the view he has taken of the feeling of this House and of this country on this subject. He has said that the measure was popular in this House and the country. Why? Because this House and the country have held most justly, and I concur with them, that we ought to wish to see the Monarch provided for with a dignity that is becoming, and even a splendor which is befitting and decent; and when it was stated that 300,000 l. ought to be given for repairing the palace of our Kings, though the sum was considerable, there was no objection made to the vote. But did it at all follow that the House and the country should be satisfied to vote 900,000 l.—not for further repairs, but for a very different object—that this measure should still continue popular when it was no longer what it had been, but was totally changed? At this moment we are not told that 900,000 l. will be enough, and, for aught I know, half a million more may yet be demanded. This is the plain view of the matter as opposed to that taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I, for one, should be ready to agree that his Majesty should have that palace repaired, or even extended, greatly extended—with which so many associations of the history of this country and of the former times of the Monarchy are connected. It is a reasonable and natural wish; but we do not put the matter fairly, if we state that we are only called on to make these votes for one palace, for while 900,000 l. have been required for Windsor, we have voted 500,000 l. and more—not for repairing a palace for his Majesty, but for building a new palace, on the site—not of an old palace, but of a modern residence, which of itself was, in my opinion, sufficient for the purposes of a Court. Even that I should not be disposed to grudge the Monarch, if I could only see an end, but (and I for one disclaim all invidious observations, and at the present am more than ever anxious to avoid
350
them) but I must say that of these expenses we can sec the beginning, but even, when 1,400,000 l. have been voted and expended, even at this hour, I can sec no end to them. I say, therefore, as a Member of this House, bound, on the one hand, to act with a view to protect the just dignity of the Monarch, and on the other to watch for the advantage and the interests of the people, that I feel it to be my imperious duty to vote against this grant, in the circumstances under which it is now proposed.
Sir J. Sebrightthought there would be no limit to such extravagance unless that House fixed a limit by a decisive resolution, Some Members had no constituents. He had, and always voted to the best of their interests, and he felt that he should not do so if he did not vote against this grant. He should be much surprised if the hon. Member did not obtain a majority.
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, his object was not to refuse the vote, but to refer it to a Committee of Inquiry, and as he had moved that 10,000 l. should be taken on the last vote on account, in order to refer it to a committee, he thought it would be more decorous to shape his present amendment on the same principle.
An hon. Member was of opinion that some competent person should give the House an estimate of the sum that was really wanted, before the money was voted.
Sir M. W. Ridleyrecalled the attention of the House to the fact that the original estimate was 300,000 l., and the excess of that estimate was fully explained when the two grants were afterwards made. The present vote, therefore, did not come upon the House unawares, but was in consequence of a distinct and well understood proposition for carrying on further improvements at the castle than were at first proposed. Some Members might ask whether the sum now required would, if granted, be sufficient to complete the works? He had not sufficient opportunity to inquire into the subject to be able to answer that question distinctly; but he thought, that in the state in which the works were now, any further demand could not proceed to a great extent.
Mr. Hobhousebelieved that the case in favour of his hon. friend's Amendment was made much stronger by the hon. Member, one of the commissioners for these works, who had just spoken. Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that hon. Commissioner was quite unable to answer for the future demands that might be made on ac-

351
count of Windsor Castle—an inability which in itself was the strongest reason for the proposed inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of the responsibility imposed on the Ministers in affairs of this sort. Let him consent to this committee, and they would be relieved from it. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the people of England were interested in these works, though it might possibly be true that they would have been interested in the works, if they had been merely confined to the reparation of the old Castle. He was convinced the people would not be satisfied if this sum were granted without inquiry.
Lord Sandonthought, an inquiry was necessary, and he would support the Amendment.
Sir T. Aclandhad ever been disposed to vote for a liberal expenditure to provide a residence worthy of the sovereign and of the people of England, but until he heard some satisfactory explanation as to the amount of the sum which would be finally required, he could not vote for this Estimate. If he were satisfied that a delay in making the grant would be detrimental to the contemplated improvements, he should hesitate in voting for it; but he did not fear any such result. The House had not the full estimate before them, and when he saw a crippled estimate he suspected something was wrong. He thought that it would be more worthy of the House, and more satisfactory to the public, if the Government would do what it ought, and give a more distinct explanation of the whole case before this vote was proposed. Under such circumstances, he felt it his duty, though it was most exceedingly painful to be obliged to do so, to vote against the grant, and in favour of the Amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerquite agreed with those hon. Members who said, that there were circumstances at the present moment which rendered a discussion on this subject exceedingly painful indeed. He was ready to say, that if it were the general feeling of the House that this Estimate should be referred to a committee, he should no longer resist that feeling, and he did not think that he showed any undue deference to the opposition which had been raised on this occasion, if under such circumstances he consented to have this vote referred to a committee, for the purpose of ascertaining what might be the ultimate expense necessary for the completion of Windsor Castle. He did so, he confessed,
352
with considerable pain—but under the conviction that, at the present moment, he was taking that course which was best calculated to prevent a most painful discussion, and to prove that the recommendation which he had made to the committee was one which he was justified in making, and which, after the information which he should lay before it, the committee would feel justified in carrying into effect. He should therefore withdraw this vote for the present, with a view to ascertain what might be necessary to complete these works.
Mr. Gordonwas rather inclined to persevere in his Amendment, as he should have, in case of its being carried, the appointment of the committee up stairs, which would be otherwise with the right hon. Gentleman, who, he must say, was not most happy in forming his committees. However, if it were the feeling of the majority of the Members, he would withdraw his Amendment, and he trusted a proper committee would be appointed to investigate the subject.
Mr. Broughamsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in assuming that he made no undue deference to the opinion of the House in withdrawing this Estimate, for that opinion had been too decidedly expressed to allow any such vote to be passed; and he (Mr. Brougham) would venture to say, that neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor the whole power of the Government, could any more have succeeded in carrying this vote on the present occasion than they would have succeeded in carrying a vote for 10,000,000 l. sterling for the same purpose.
The proposed grant withdrawn.
On the Motion of Mr. Hume, that the Chairman do report progress, the House, after some conversation, resumed.

NAVY-PAY OFFICE.
Mr. F. Lewis Mr. F. Lewis moved the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Navy Pay Consolidation Laws' Bill. He explained, that it repealed or omitted twenty-one capital punishments, but otherwise made no alteration in the law. Being aware of the feeling of the House on the subject of the Paymastership of the Navy, the name of the Paymaster had been struck out of every clause except one. By that he would be empowered still to receive letters, and it was proposed that he should continue to do so till July, 1831.
In answer to a question from Mr. Hume, the right hon. Gentleman explained, that he might be obliged to employ a person under him, as a deputy, not being able with

353
his own hands to discharge all the duties of the situation; he, however, should continue, responsible. He had undertaken to discharge the duties of the office of Treasurer without any Paymaster; and he put it therefore to the candour of the Mouse, whether he ought to be compelled to be in his office at all hours of the day, or to adopt a course that would place at hazard the public money. In case of ill health, or unavoidable absence, the duties of his office, as of all similar offices, would devolve upon the person next in authority to him, and if the Treasurer of the Navy were to be debarred from that privilege, it would subject the service to considerable inconvenience. A person was allowed at common law to appoint another person to act for him by a power of attorney; and he saw no reason why that privilege should be denied to the Treasurer of the Navy.
In reply to a further question put by Mr. Hume, the right hon. Gentleman stated, that it was not intended, he believed, to make any new appointment by which a fresh salary would accrue to any individual, but he must at the same time state, that there never was an office in which so much business was done, as that of the Treasurer of the Navy, without an immediate deputy or clerk, possessing an adequate salary to assist the Treasurer. When he considered the business likely to devolve on him after the abolition of the office of Paymaster, he thought he should be obliged to ask for some assistance, though he would not do so till he found that it was not possible to go on without it. The President of the Board of Trade had always had a secretary, and he did not think the most rigid economist of the public money would wish to deny to the Treasurer of the Navy the assistance of a secretary. He did not wish to trumpet forth his own praise—but it did afford him pleasure to state, that since he had held the office of Treasurer of the Navy, he had been enabled to make a saving of 3,000 l. a year.
In answer to a further question from Mr. Poulett Thomson, the right hon. Gentleman stated, that under all circumstances, the Treasurer of the Navy, and not any deputy he might appoint by power of attorney or otherwise, would be answerable for the public money.
Bill went through a committee.

CONTINUANCE OF OFFICES ON THE DEMISE OF THE CROWN.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for leave to bring in a Bill to revive,
354
amend, and render perpetual the Act 5 Geo. 3rd, c. 45, to continue every person in office at the demise of the Sovereign, until removed or discharged therefrom by the succeeding King or Queen of this realm.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested to the hon. Member the propriety of postponing the Motion, from motives of delicacy to which he need not more particularly allude.
The Attorney General concurred in this recommendation.
Mr. Warburton and Mr. O'Connellsupported the Motion.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but there not being forty Members present the House was counted out.