Sitting of 13 June 1808

KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING A VOTE OF CREDIT.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following Message from his majesty:
"G. R. His majesty, relying on the uniform zeal manifested by his faithful commons to provide for whatever exigencies the situation of affairs may require,

859
recommends to this house to enable him to take such measures as the circumstances of the extensive warfare in which his majesty is engaged may render necessary to counteract the plans of his majesty's enemies, and to provide for the safety of his dominions."—Ordered to be referred to the Committee of Supply.

AFFAIRS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY.
Mr. R. Dundas moved, that the house do go into a Committee of Supply, to whom should be referred the Petition of the East India Company, and the Report of the Committee appointed to enquire into the affairs of the said Company. Upon the motion being put from the chair,
Lord Folkestonerose, and objected to the Speaker leaving the chair, as he thought the report alluded to was perfectly unsatisfactory, and contained so little information, that it would be quite improper for the house to go into its consideration. On a former occasion an objection had been stated as to the manner in which that committee had been formed, and he still looked upon that objection as being justified by the report now upon the table. There were, in his opinion, various facts, of which the house ought to be in possession, before they proceeded to vote any great sum of money to the East India Company.
Mr. R. Dundasobserved that the objections of the noble lord would be better reserved for the committee.
Mr. Creeveywas of the same opinion as the noble lord; but would not object to the house going into the committee.—The house having gone into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. R. Dundasthen stated, that it would be unnecessary for him to say much, as the Report contained most of the facts that were necessary to be detailed. Some misunderstanding had arisen between the Accountants of the Company and the public, which were referred to the committee appointed upon East India affairs, who had thought it necessary to adhere to the principles laid down by the former committee. The first article charged by the Company was the expence of prisoners of war conveyed by his majesty's ships to India, immediately upon capture, which necessarily became chargeable upon the public; and the next was the expence of remitting to India such sums of money as had been paid by the Company to the public in liquidation of the balance owing to them. A question had been stated, as
860
to whether the public should be bound to pay in India the money so borrowed, or to the Company in this country, and disputes had arisen as to the rate of interest to be allowed. It had been, however, settled, by the Report, that not only the expence of the remittance of bullion to India, but the usual interest of that place, where it was originally borrowed, should be paid. Upon these grounds he did not feel himself justified in calling upon parliament to make any advance to the Company farther than that which had been formerly stated to be actually ascertained to be due. He concluded with moving, "That a sum not exceeding 1,500,000 l. be granted to his majesty, to enable him to pay the same to the East India Company on account of expences incurred by them in the public service."
Lord Folkestonerepeated the objections he had urged before the house had gone into a committee, and then moved as an amendment, That instead of 1,500,000 l. the sum of five pounds be inserted.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that he was rather disposed to agree to the Resolution, with the exception of one item, amounting to 100,000 l. which he could not consent to vote.
Mr. Tierneysupported the Resolution. Although the committee were not vested with the authority of arbitrators, yet they had been appointed to ascertain the amount of the debt due upon either side. The result of their inquiry was, that 2,300,000 l. were found due by the public to the Company, part of which having already been paid, this vote was only for an acknowledged balance, joined to some further subsequent claims. The point at issue, therefore, was relative to the rate of interest and the mode of transmitting payment of the debt due by the public to India. As to this, he had no doubt of the charge made by the Company being perfectly fair and reasonable, and that if their accounts had been submitted to a master in chancery, the amount of their claim upon the public would have been nearly four millions, instead of the sum at which it had been charged in the Report. He could not really see any just grounds for objecting to the liquidation of the debt as now-charged, as it was strictly due by the public. If the noble lord was determined to persist in objecting to any part of that debt, he should at least allow, even in his amendment, that which he might look upon as unobjectionable.
Lord Folkestonestated, that the principle upon which he had proposed a grant of five pounds, was merely for form sake, as he objected to the voting of any sum whatever upon the Report in its present imperfect state. He did not object to the paying of Indian interest so much as he did to the expence which was charged for carrying out bullion to India.
Sir John Anstruthersaid, he most heartily concurred in the Resolution, as it appeared to him it was fair and reasonable the Company should receive payment of the money in the same place, and in the same manner, in which it had been borrowed. The public must be paying interest for that money, until such time as it was sent out to India, and therefore he thought there could be no question as to who should bear the loss.
Mr. Wilberforce and lord Morpeth severally stated their sentiments in favour of the original resolution, and lord Folkestone's amendment was negatived without a division. The original resolution was then put and agreed to.

SICILIAN SUBSIDY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved a Resolution, That 300,000 l. be granted to his majesty, to enable him to fulfil his engagements with the king of Sicily.
Mr. Whitbreaddesired some explanation as to the lateness of the time at which this treaty was laid before the house; and how this sum came to be paid so long by government without any former communication to parliament. Policy required, that when we gave away such large sums we should know wherefore. He also observed, that returns ought to have been laid before the house, of the proper application of this money. He observed in the treaty that a particular number of men was mentioned, as that which it would be necessary to provide for its defence. He did not approve of this. It was certainly enough for us to say that we would defend it, leaving the number to our discretion.
Mr. Secretary Cunningentered into a detail of the circumstances by which Naples had been drawn into the war with France, and stated that it had been done by a Russian commander who had landed troops there. But the king of Naples being drawn into the war, G. Britain was bound by every consideration to assist him in his defence. The engagement to pay 25,000 l. a month, or 300,000 l. a year, had been entered into by the government
862
before the late one, and part of the money had been paid. In 1806, when the change took place, the Sicilian ambassador applied to the ministers, and it was resolved that a regular agreement should be drawn up, but, in the mean time, the payments were made. The regular engagement was not drawn up till the close of that administration. The instrument arrived here in July or August last; but from some mistake of Mr. Drummond, there was an article in it to which we could not agree. It was therefore necessary to send it back, and he hoped it would appear that they had laid it before the house as soon as possible. With regard to the returns mentioned by the hon. gent, these could not very easily have been made previous to this period; but Mr. Drummond had declared that the greatest exertions were making in Sicily; and he might be the more readily depended upon, as he went out with an inclination to think that they would scarcely act with all the requisite energy. As to the number of troops, it was judged necessary to fix the minimum, which was 10,000 men, but there was nothing to prevent us from sending more, if that should be judged proper, and more there actually were at this moment.
Lord H. Pettythought the answers satisfactory. He was of opinion, however, that the specific provisions for the defence of the island, ought to have appeared on the face of the treaty, in a manner more full than they actually did.
Mr. Whitbreadadmitted that the answer to the first question was satisfactory, and was glad that a Russian and not a British commander had been guilty of that most impolitic, absurd, and pernicious act, the forcing of Naples into the war at the time she had concluded a treaty of neutrality with France. He, however, saw no reason why we were to have the controul of two forts in the island and not of the third and most important. He thought we should have had an option of putting our garrisons in which ever of them we pleased, or in all.
Mr. Secretary Cunningstated that we had, and should have, the controul over the third; but that the provision respecting the two was adopted with a view to the number of troops we could furnish. He also observed, that the duties paid by our soldiers on certain articles of provision in Sicily were to be drawn back in the payments to be made under the treaty.
Mr. Windhamhad heard a great deal more importance attached to the third tortress than to those of Messina and Augusta, as being more directly in the line of the place, where an enemy from the opposite coast could soonest reach. He certainly thought, therefore, that the stipulation ought to have been express for our occupying this fortress.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid there was a provision in the treaty that appeared to bind us to restore Naples to the king of Sicily at a peace. He was sorry for this: because, as we wished always to perform our engagements, we ought rather to promise less than more than we could do. This was not, perhaps, the meaning intended; but it might bear that construction.
Mr. Secretary Canningstated that there could be no doubt as to the construction of This article, as it was the amendment of that one which had last year been objected to, precisely on the ground mentioned, that it might bind us to more than we could perform. Still if we could restore Naples to the king of Sicily, we should be glad to do it, although we could not enter into any engagement to do it.
Mr. Bankesobjected to the practice of granting money, as appeared to have been done here, without the matter having been regularly before parliament, which had a right to examine into the grounds of giving away their money, and the manner in which it was expended. He also thought, that a treaty of commerce ought to have accompanied this engagement. The omission of an opportunity to do that, while we were giving away our money, might be felt in the case of Sweden, with respect to which perhaps, we might be involved in great difficulty about our Orders of Council.
Mr. Huskissonstated that the account of the disposal of the money had been always laid before parliament, though the thing, he admitted, had not been done in the most regular way.—The Resolution was then agreed to.

WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. Long Mr. Long moved a grant of 75,200 l. for projecting the improvements in and near both houses of parliament, and for the purchase of grounds in and near Palace-yard with a view to that object.
Mr. Windhamobjected to the mode in which the money was expended, and the bad taste which prevailed in the pretended improvements. He thought it sufficient to grant a part of this large sum at pre-
864
sent, and was sorry to say the style of building hitherto pursued was such as to impress an idea of misery instead of grandeur.
Mr. Longagreed with the right hon. gent, in condemning the mock Gothic front of the house of lords. The remaining buildings should be submitted to such judgment as would insure a better taste.
Mr. Rosesaid, that he really did not know under whose authority these improvements were conducted; but some of them consisted in lath and plaister, and he should be very happy that they were pulled down.
Mr. Sheridanthought no new grant should be made till care should be taken that the new expenditure did not get into the same hands as the former. The present front of the house of lords was something like the appointment of Dr. Duigenan to the privy council, every one was ashamed of it, and nobody would avow himself the author of it. He recommended undoing the improper appointment, as well as pulling down the miserable building.
The Speakerjoined in condemning the improvements, as they were called, and, by some persons, had been thought, but for which, he declared himself in no way responsible. With respect to what was to be done, the plans were now before the house, so that it only, and not the commissioners, would be responsible, either for adopting or rejecting them.
Mr. Bankeswas glad that this subject had attracted the notice of the committee, and reprobated the practice of voting the public money, when no one was responsible for its application. He moved that instead of 75,000 l. only 45,000 l. should be voted, as amply sufficient to supply all the demands of the present year.
Mr. Whitbread,though he had every wish for œconomy, thought the present building so disgraceful that he would vote for a new one. He thought that a committee ought to be appointed to inquire who authorised the raising of the buildings, who audited the accounts, and who issued the orders for their payment.
Mr. Rosebelieved that the works were ordered by the Surveyor General of the Board of Works, and that they might have been paid by an order from the Treasury. But he asserted that every shilling of the money had been accounted for, and that the accounts had been as scrupulously examined, as any public accounts ever had.
Lord H. Pettycondemned the front of the house of lords, and denied all knowledge of the plan.
The Speakersaid, a general order had been given to comply with the wish expressed by the house of lords for additional buildings. Nobody knew any thing of the plan till the building exhibited itself in its present form.
Mr. Huskissonstated that, in consequence of the difficulties the Board of Treasury found in getting proper accounts from the Board of Works, measures had recently been taken to put the great expence of that Board under proper controul.
Mr. Fullercondemned the shameful carelessness, which, from whatever quarter proceeding, was so evident, from the disgraceful state of the exterior of the house of lords. The professed object was to give that house a handsome outside; whereas, to speak plain English, its pilastres appeared nothing better than a set of elongations, to which, under certain circumstances, the members might occasionally retire. The work which had been erected was a paltry building, and he was not surprised the public thought their money thrown away upon it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerpreferred the eyesore of the present building to the expence of pulling it down. The authority for purchasing the building was given in 1806, and notice was given to the holders inconsequence. On this ground, he thought it right to vote the original sum: which was voted accordingly.

MR. PALMER'S CLAIM.
Sir T. Turton,in the committee of supply, after recapitulating the different proceedings on the Claims of Mr. Palmer, stated that a sum of about 68,000 l. had been found due to him by the former committee, but that the committee, to whom the account of this balance was last referred, had, on a different caculation, reduced it 14,000 l; concluded by moving, "That a sum not exceeding 54,702 l. 0s. 7d. be granted to his majesty, to be paid to John Palmer, esq. being the balance of the percentage due to him on the net Revenue of the Post-Office. from the 5th day of April 1793 to the 5th day of January 1808." On this a division took place: For the Resolution 93; Against it 73. Majority 20. The Resolution was accordingly agreed to.

SPAIN.
The house having resumed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer adverted to the motion respecting Spain, of which notice had been given by a right hen.
866
gent. (Mr. Sheridan); but with the purport and scope of which he professed himself not to be acquainted. He could not, therefore, but be anxious to know what was the object of that right hon. gentleman's motion.
Mr. Sheridanthought it sufficient to observe, that he had communicated the substance of his intended motion to his right hon. friend, the secretary for foreign affairs, whose absence he had now to regret, because he was certain, that had his rt. hon. friend been present, he would have made no objection to the nature of the motion he had to propose. He had so framed it, that it was impossible the entertaining of it could cause any public detriment, or expose ministers to any violation of that discretion and secrecy which it was their duty to observe in matters of this sort. But if that right hon. gent, was ignorant of the purport of this motion, it was only a new proof of the shyness of communication which he had reason to believe existed between that right hon. gent, and his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning); otherwise he could not account for the disapprobation which the right hon. gent, had now manifested of any motion of the nature he had intended to make, being brought under the consideration of the house.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware of any good that could arise from the agitation of such a subject, and must only suppose, that the object of the right hon. gent., in making such a motion, was merely to draw a speech from one of his majesty's ministers.
Mr. Whitbreadwas anxious to dissuade his right hon. friend from stirring any inquiry into the affairs of Spain at so critical and perilous a moment. In his opinion, every matter of that kind, under the peculiar circumstances of the moment, should be left entirely and exclusively to the discretion of the executive power.
Mr. Sheridanwas determined to persist in his motion. It could be productive of no evil, and it might give rise to much good. He felt the urgency of the business, and was therefore resolved not to leave it to the slow and skulking hesitation of ministers. As to the apprehensions of his hon. friend, he was confident that he should not only be able to allay those apprehensions, but succeed in convincing his hon. friend of the propriety of the motion which he intended to make.—Mr. Sheridan having thus persisted in his motion, it was fixed for Wednesday,

SUGAR DISTILLATION.
On the motion for the third reading of the Sugar Distillation bill,
Mr. Westernrose to oppose the third reading of the bill for suspending the grain distillery. He said he could not suffer it to pass that stage, without again declaring the same decided hostility to its principle which he had avowed upon its first introduction. Nothing had been urged that removed any objection to it he had originally felt; so far from it, the more he considered the measure, in every point of view it appeared to him contrary to every principle of sound policy, infinitely mischievous, on account of the establishment of a dangerous precedent of interference with the agriculture of the country, and at the same time wholly uncalled for by any pressure, or even appearance of scarcity present or to be apprehended. If any danger should arise in consequence of the harvest being at all deficient, it might be as well guarded against by an order of council, instead of agitating the public mind by the means which had been pursued. There were two or three circumstances to which he wished to advert, relative to the consumption of grain in the distilleries and the foreign import, and which he thought it material to state to the house, especially so because he believed that the opinion which prevailed relative to the amount of such foreign grain imported, and of grain consumed in the distilleries, was very erroneous. The report of the committee tended to confirm these erroneous opinions by taking only one average of the foreign importation, namely upon the last five years, and also by not taking the last official return of the quantity of grain annually consumed in the distilleries in Ireland, amounting to 890,000 barrels. The importation of foreign corn was stated to amount to 770,000 quarters annually, and which certainly was the case upon the average of those five years; but he begged to call the attention of the house to the importation of the two last years, and which it was more material for us to consider. It would be found that the import of foreign corn in the year 1806 amounted to only 319,000 quarters. In 1807, it was certainly a great deal more, but if the two years were averaged it would not exceed 500,000 quarters each year, inclusive of the import of flour. This view of our situation ought to be exhibited to the public, as it was material in every point of view and
868
much more satisfactory. It was another irresistible proof of the increasing produce of the country and of the means we possessed of providing for our own subsistence. Then in regard to the quantity of corn used in the distilleries, he thought the committee had relied too much upon the lowest calculations, and appeared certainly to have done so in regard to Ireland, where the consumption by the last official return, was nearly double that upon which the report appears to be founded. The committee calculate upon a total consumption for Great Britain and Ireland of 780,000 quarters, of which England is supposed to consume 300,000, Scotland 109,000, Ireland 311,000; but the Irish official account nearly doubles that estimate, and the British probably exceeds it, being founded upon the number of gallons of spirits actually paying duty. The total of grain of all sorts consumed therefore must exceed 1,000,000 quarters, whilst the foreign importation amounts only to 500,000.—This was a very different statement from that which the public were impressed with, and which was made to appear by the report of the committee; it was however perfectly correct, and could not be disputed. It was not immaterial to consider likewise in this view of the case that in the event of this bill passing, and of our not receiving a single quarter of corn from foreign countries, our agriculture would still lose a market for 500,000 quarters. The impolicy of reducing the markets for grain had been already repeatedly urged, and was too obvious and indisputable to admit of any justification: such a reduction of demand would be more felt also by the growers than is imagined. Many people supposed the loss of the distillery markets would not be sensibly perceived. The effect would certainly be perceived, or not, according to the abundance or the deficiency of the approaching harvest; if it was abundant and a good barley year, it would be materially felt. It was well known that we imported no barley, our own produce was equal to our own consumption, and, in a plentiful year, it was in his opinion more. It was but four or five years ago the price of barley was in Norfolk and Suffolk as low as 20 s. per quarter, and the average of the kingdom 23 s. or 24 s. Even the circumstances of the present moment afforded evidence of this opinion, inasmuch as there was a sufficiency to carry us through upon three-fourths of a crop, and a total failure of peas and

869
beans, to supply the places of which in the feeding of hogs, &c. a considerable quantity of barley must have been used. To estimate the effect upon the price of the article by the loss of the distillery markets, these circumstances then must not be forgotten, the effect was not to be considered by the measure of quantity used in the distilleries, it was the withdrawing any demand from a market sufficiently supplied that would so affect the price, and which it was well known would sink it very far indeed beyond the ratio or amount of such demand withdrawn. There was another circumstance also that would operate upon the price, and that was the loss of the competition excited by the appearance of the distiller in the corn market.—Upon the whole, he was satisfied the measure, however limited, would have a very injurious effect upon the agriculture of the country, and would discourage to a great degree the spirit of improvement and of enterprise in the cultivation of the soil. It was possible that the class of farmers who do not look beyond the moment would not be influenced in their conduct till they experienced the effects, but every man of information and reflection who was about to embark a considerable capital in the cultivation of lands hitherto waste and unproductive, or who was about to carry into effect expensive improvements upon lands already in tillage, must inevitably feel the most serious alarm from such an unprecedented and unnecessary interference with the markets for the produce of agriculture. Every merchant and manufacturer knows and dreads the effects of any interruption or restriction of the market for his commodities, be they what they may, and it must be as sensibly or even more sensibly felt by the agriculturist than any other persons. The return of capital employed in the cultivation of lands was slower and the profits less than that employed in any other way, and upon that account as well as others, required a steadier market, and more perfect security to induce the direction of it to that object. These considerations, as well as many others, had convinced him that the proposed measure would be productive of incalculable mischief, and he had heard no arguments stated in the course of its progress through the house that had at all shaken his original opinion; indeed, scarcely any that appeared to bear upon the subject. He should therefore give his most decided negative to the third reading of the bill.
Mr. D. Giddy and lord H. Petty opposed the bill, not from any objection to the affording protection to the West India planters, but on the ground that the principle of the bill was utterly subversive of our agricultural interests.—The question being called for, the house divided, and the numbers were, Ayes 74; Noes 34. Majority for the third reading 40. The bill was then read a third time, passed and ordered to the lords.

MR. PALMER'S CLAIM.
Lord Hawkesburyobserved, that seeing by the votes of the house of commons, that a measure was in progress there, relative to the Claims of Mr. Palmer, he thought it right to propose to institute an inquiry in their lordships' house in the mean time respecting those Claims. He therefore moved to appoint a committee to inquire into the nature of the Agreement entered into by government with Mr. Palmer respecting the improvement of the Post-Office, and the causes of the suspension of Mr. Palmer from the comptrollership of the Post-Office.—A committee was appointed accordingly.

TREATY WITH THE KING OF SICILY.
Lord Hawkesbury Lord Hawkesbury moved the order of the day, for taking into consideration his majesty's Message, respecting the Treaty concluded with his Sicilian majesty. The object of the motion with which he should conclude, would be to induce the house to concur in making good the stipulations by which his majesty was bound in that treaty; and to bring their lordships to acquiesce in that motion, only a very few observations, he thought, would be necessary. The present Treaty was in substance the same as that concluded and approved
858
of by former administrations; but as what was proper and expedient two years since, might not be proper and expedient at the present moment, he should not rest his motion merely on that ground, but observe further, that as the circumstances between the two countries remained nearly the same as at that period, the expediency of pursuing the same line of conduct must also most probably remain. The sum stipulated to be granted was the same, viz. 300,000 l. for which reciprocal services were to be performed. Their lordships would no doubt recollect the circumstances out of which our connection with Sicily arose, and they would therefore be sensible of the fidelity and generosity with which the country must feel itself bound, strictly to adhere to its different stipulations. His lordship concluded with moving an address to his majesty, assuring his majesty of their cordial concurrence in the object of his majesty's gracious communication.
Lord Hollanddid not mean to find fault with the Treaty, although probably its policy or impolicy might at the present moment, in a great measure, depend upon circumstances, of which that house could not be informed, and which, indeed, it would not be proper to communicate. He readily admitted that some such treaty was called for by the claims which his Sicilian majesty had upon the generosity and honour of this country. At the same time, however, there were circumstances connected with the state of Sicily which afforded ground for much anxiety, and he was glad to find that precautionary provisions were inserted in the treaty; but he regretted that in addition to the two fortresses which our troops were to occupy, that of Malazzo was not also directed to be garrisoned by our troops, the latter fortress being of great strength and importance, and kept up at a trifling expence.—The motion for the Address was then put and agreed to.