Sitting of 23 June 1808

ARMY CLOTHING.
Mr. Wardell,pursuant to his notice, proceeded to call the attention of the house to the subject of Army Clothing. The object of his motion he would frankly state at the outset to be, to save an useless expenditure of the public money, by substituting public contract in the place of private, though, as he should afterwards prove, the system of private contract had received such avowed encouragement from the illustrious personage at the head of the army, and from his majesty's present Secretary at War. He would, before he sat down, prove to the house that the public money had been extravagantly wasted by this system of private contract. It appeared from a letter, signed 'William Merry,' and dated the 2d of July, 1803, that the government had at that time contracted that the army should be supplied with great-coats at the rate of 16 s.6d. per coat, but that price was then acceded to, upon the condition stated in a letter from the then Secretary at War (Mr. Yorke), that the price per coat then agreed to be given should be reduced in proportion to the reduction of the then price of kersey. Now, he was prepared to prove incontrovertibly to the house, that the price of kersey had been reduced since that period, gradually and considerably, and that the primitive charge of 16 s. 6d. per coat had not been at all abated till Feb. last. The decrease of the price of kersey had been from 1804 to the year 1807, in the following proportion: in Dec. 1804, kersey was at the rate of 4s. 6d. per yard; in Dec. 1805, it fell to 4s. 4d. per yard; in Dec. 1806, it sold at the rate of 4s. 2d. per yard; and in Dec. 1807, it was so low as 3s. 6d. per yard; and notwithstanding the proviso insisted on in the letter of Mr. Yorke, still was the public paying for every great coat at the original rate of 16 s. 6d. per coat, though the rates by which the price was to be measured had fallen from 4s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per yard. This he could prove by the testimony of the most respectable clothiers in the country. He held in his hand a calculation he had made of the loss the public had, within the short space of three years, sustained by the non-enforcement of the proviso laid down by Mr. Yorke, namely, the reduction of the charge per coat, in proportion to the reduction of the price of kersey per yard. He would rate the army at 250,000 men,

1003
which was 50,000 less than the number stated by the noble lord (Castlereagh), on submitting to the house his plan for a Local Militia; but he (Mr. Wardell) was anxious to proceed in his calculation according to the most moderate ratio. Each man was allowed a great coat once in every 3 years. He took the number of great coats for one year at 80,000, certainly below the fair proportion for the year ending Dec. 1805, during which the kersey had fallen two-pence per yard, being sold for 4s. 4d. per yard; according, then, to the original condition, every great coat should have been sold for 15 s. 10 d. instead of 16 s. 6d. per coat; here, then, had the original contract been adhered to, there would have been a saving of 8d. per coat, which in the expenditure of one year, would have been a saving of no less a sum than 2,666 l. 13 s. 4d. In the following year, kersey selling for 4s. 2d. per yard, the price of the great coats should have been at the rate of 15 s. 2d. per coat, instead of 16 s. 6d., which making a difference of 1s. 4d. per coat, would be to the public a saving of not less than 5,333 l. 16 s. 8d. Again, in the year commencing 1806, when kersey sold for 3s. 6d. per yard, each great coat, according to the original stipulation, should have been sold for 12 s. 9d. each, instead of what they were then sold for 16 s. 6d. each; whereby, the contractors had a profit of 3s. 9d. per coat; and thus there was an unnecessary waste of the public money to the amount of 15,000 l. so that in the course of three years, the saving of the public money, if the original stipulation had been adhered to, would have amounted to 23,000 l. It appeared further, that no reduction whatever had taken place in the charge for the clothing (notwithstanding the serious reduction of the price of the material) till the 1st of Feb. last. For this reduction, certainly no thanks were due to the right horn the Secretary at War, but to the repeated offers on the part of the majority of the clothiers to supply the clothing at a reduced price. He would prove, if he had not already done so, that the loss of public money, under this system of favoritism, by the means of private contract, amounted in the course of three years to 23,000 l. On the 29th of June, 1806, the firm of Messrs. Scott and Co. offered to supply great coats for 20,000 men, at the rate of 14 s. 9d. per coat. To this proposal they never received an answer (hear! hear! from the ministerial benches). It was true
1004
that this part of the charge did not affect the gentlemen opposite; but this would shew, that he (Mr. Wardell) was not influenced by party motives; and that in the discharge of his duty as a member of parliament, to the public, he would be equally indifferent to either friend or foe [hear! hear!].—He contended, that had this offer of Scott and Co. been accepted, it would have been a saving of the public money to the amount of 21,875 l.; and still more to evince, the folly of not acceding to their offer, it appeared that the same house afterwards accepted of a partial interest in the contract made with Pearse, and actually received at the rate of 16 s. 6d. per coat, what they offered to provide at the reduced rate of 14 s. 9d. per coat. They had made another offer on the 10th of Feb., 1808, when kersey was as low as 3s. 6d. per yard, to supply great coats at the rate of 12s. each, to this tender they certainly received an answer, and were so far more successful than in their former application, but it so happened, that they received 14 s. per coat, through the means of a partial interest, which they had offered at the rate of 12 s. per coat; and not only that of Scott's, but any house in London would have supplied that part of the army clothing at the rate of 12 s. per coat. He meant from the 29th of June, 1806, to the year ending 1807, and thus there would have been a saving of not less than 16,666 l., or at the rate of 50,000 l. each delivery. The clothiers, induced by such repeated offers, agreed to take off 2s. 6d. in the price of each coat, instead of 4s. The hon. gent. then read a letter, dated the 11th of Nov. 1807, and signed G. Harrison, in which there was a proposal made to the contractors on the part of the lords of the treasury, that in proportion to prompt payment there should be a reduction in the price. He commented on this passage, and contended that it appeared from Mr. Gilgrim's voucher on the table, that the payments had seldom been made earlier than six months. He was willing to give every credit to the noble lords at the head of the treasury, they had done what they could to establish a system of fair and open contract; but their exertions in this respect seemed to have been counteracted by a powerful but improper influence. Here the hon. gent. read a letter signed "Harry Calvert, Adjutant General of the Forces," addressed to the Secretary at War, in which the writer, in the name of his royal highness the Com-

1005
mander in Chief, disapproved of any change in the mode of clothing the Army; this letter was dated 11th Nov. 1807. Here the hon. member took occasion to disapprove of the Secretary at War feeling it necessary to consult the duke of York upon the propriety of obeying any orders issued by the lords of the treasury, with respect to Army Clothing. If such applications were made to the Commander in Chief, merely because he was the son of our gracious sovereign, such a principle of false deference could not be too early corrected; if, on the other hand, it was owing to a superior authority vested in his royal highness, it would be right to ascertain whether the orders of the lords of the treasury should thus be permitted to be waved or disputed. The hon. member next read a letter from the Secretary at War to G. Harrison, bearing date the 8th of December, 1807, in which he expressed it to be incumbent on him to communicate with the duke of York on the subject of the instructions given by the lords of the treasury with respect to the clothing of the Army by public contract. In the same letter the right hon. secretary expresses his sincere wish that the lords of the treasury would comply with the highest military authority in the country, on a point on which his royal highness's experience ought to have such weight. That it had appeared that all contracts of a public nature in this department had not been productive either of any advantage to the individual, or of any real service to the public; and that he (the Secretary at War) therefore hoped, that their lordships would not force the mode of supply of clothing by public contract. It appeared then, that though the Secretary at War thought it necessary to have those communications with the duke of York, yet that he, at the same time, admitted the power of the lords of the treasury, independent of the wishes of his royal highness. The hon. member next referred to a letter, dated 8th Feb. 1808, addressed to the Secretary at War, with respect to another offer for the supplying great coats to the army by public contract.—The hon. member proceeded to state, that no sooner had Mr. Pierce received an order to furnish great coats at 16 s. 16 d., than he set off to a slop-seller of the name of Dickson, and bargained with him to furnish them at 13 s. 6d. or 14 s. This was a fact which could not be got rid of, and which he was ready to prove at the bar of the house. The loss
1006
to the public by this bargain, in one year, was no less than 30,000 l., even on the supposition that Dickson furnished the coats at only 2s. 6d. less than Pierce's contract. —He should now beg leave to state a few words on the general clothing of the army. He was as reluctant as the right hon. gent. opposite (the Secretary at War) could be to break in on any of the privileges of colonels, but he could propose a mode of saving to the country without making any alteration in their situation. When ha stated the saving that might be produced from a change in the mode of contracting for Army Clothing at 100,000 l., he found on a closer examination of the subject, that he had greatly under-rated it. If a committee were to be appointed, he should have no difficulty in shewing that instead of the price paid by colonels of 1l. 13 s. 9d. for coat, waistcoat, breeches, and shoes, these articles could be furnished of the same quality for 1l. 7s. 8d. being a difference of 6s. 1d. on each suit, or of 76,041 l. a year. Mr. Pierce stated, that for ready money he would give a discount of five per cent. The contractor gave six months credit; so this would form a deduction of two and a half per cent, and would reduce the saving to the public to about 68,000 l. He could shew that there would be a saving on every cap of at least 1s. which would amount to about 12,500 l. making together about 81,000 l. On accoutrements, supposing them to last five years, there would also be a saving of about 12,000 l. making 93,000 l. and the annual saving on great coats, amounting to about 8000 l. would produce a total of 101,000 l.; all this, too, independent of the whimsical and absurd dresses used in many regiments, which seemed calculated for no other purpose, than to excite amusement, if not ridicule, in the public. He was convinced, when every thing was taken into computation, that he might estimate the saving, instead of 100,000 l. at 200,000 l. If he were to go to the opinions of those who had been in the service of army agents, and to adopt their tone, he should say, that it would even amount to 400,000 l. For that, however, he could not vouch; he only gave the story as he received it. It was, however, he understood, no unusual thing for army agents to receive several hundreds a year for recommendations to particular regimental contracts. He should conclude with moving, "1. That it is the opinion of this house, that from an improper adherence to the system of Private Contract,

1007
the public have been put to a very unnecessary expence for military great-coats; and it is the farther opinion of this house, that the orders of the Treasury of the 5th Nov. 1807, and 1lth Feb. 1808, directing the great-coats of the army to be supplied by open contract, are highly proper and necessary to be adopted in future. 2. That it is the opinion of this house, that open Contract should be resorted to in all cases where the clothing and appointments of the army are ordered by government. 3. That a Committee be appointed to take under their consideration the Clothing and Appointments of the Army in general, with a view to ascertain, whether by the adoption of a new system, clothing and appointments agreeably to his majesty's regulations, might not be furnished on such terms as would ensure a great saving to the public, and at the same time allow a continuance of those emoluments to the colonels that they have hitherto enjoyed from the clothing of their regiments, or an equivalent in lieu thereof."—He concluded by stating, that it was not his intention to press his motions this session.
The Secretary at Warreplied to the observations of the hon. gent. Those who were well acquainted with the woollen trade, had informed him that the prices had remained stationary from 1803 to the present time, With respect to the price for great-coats that had been fixed in 1803, namely, 16 s. 6d. he could only say, that as far as he understood, that price had not been fixed without due deliberation, and a full consideration of every circumstance connected with the subject. A reference to the opinion of military men, and particular] v to that of the Commander in Chief, was indispensable on questions of this nature, and consequently the inferences of the hon. gent. did not apply. When the business was referred to the commander in chief, he communicated it to the board of general officers, who, of course, were perfectly disinterested, and who after due deliberation, declared their unanimous opinion, an opinion in which the commander in chief had concurred. The soldier's great-coat was to last him for three years: it was frequently his only covering, and it became therefore most necessary that the coats should not be of an inferior quality. On this principle, the board of general officers and the commander in chief had objected to any change in the system by which these coats had hitherto been furbished. The secretary at war had no con-
1008
nection whatever with the appointment of those who were to furnish the clothing of the army. Every colonel of a regiment selected his own army clothier. The war-office, therefore, could have no interest in the question. It was not to be expected, that the treasury would suppose any orders of this nature issued by them upon this subject were final, without consultation with the military authorities. The treasury had recommended a new system, but the board of general officers and the commander in chief were so strongly impressed with what they conceived would be the injury which the army would sustain from the change, that the treasury acquiesced. He did not think the least advantage would accrue to the public from taking the clothing out of the hands of the colonels; although he was satisfied that (provided a fair compensation were made to them) the colonels would be much benefited, and would be very happy to have the clothing removed from their hands into those of the public. He should move the previous question on each of the motions.
Mr. Whitbreadcould find no answer in the speech of the right hon. gent. to a single one of the statements of his hon. friend. The speech of the right hon. secretary at war had consisted principally of a panegyric on great-coats. That the comforts arising from the use of them should be secured to the soldier, he would be one of the last to dispute; but, on the same principle, great part of the rest of the dress of the army should be abolished. Some of them were dressed in such a manner as to be the ridicule of every person who passed by. Some of the cavalry were seen equipped with immense mulls, caps, or hats, which whether the weather was cold or hot, wet or dry, must be equally insupportable; others had immense things hanging over their arm, under which they seemed ready to faint with fatigue. Whiskers too, it might be supposed, were extremely comfortable! He agreed that if a more comfortable great coat could be furnished to the soldier for 16 s. 6d. than for 14 s. it would be proper he should have it. But what was the position of his honourable friend? That the soldier had precisely the same coat on his back for 6s. 6d. that he might have for 14 s. What greater comfort, then, he asked, could the soldier have in this? His hon. friend had stated, that one house had furnished at 6s. 6d. the very same articles which he had offered at 14 s. 9d. because

1009
he could not get the latter tender accepted of. He agreed, that the commander in chiefought to be consulted, but he objected, that the second order of the treasury should only have been considered by the secretary at war, as a hint as to their opinion on the subject. He was surprised to find, that the right hon. gent. had offered no apology for his conduct; if so much of the comfort of the soldier depended on his great-coat, and this comfort was to be endangered by the change, in insisting that if his mode of furnishing was not to be followed, the business should be transferred to the commissary general. This shewed but little regard for the comfort of the soldier, that because the change was likely to endanger his comfort, he would give up all controul in the matter. As to the Committee of Finance doing any thing on this subject, he thought, it was in vain to expect it. If the chairman of that committee were a man of iron, if he were to live to the years of Methusalem, from the mode in which that committee was now proceeding, little good was to be looked for. The great-coats might be worn out again and again before any relief would be afforded from that quarter. He should therefore support all the Resolutions of his hon. friend.
General Stuartthought it signified not what was the dress of soldiers, provided they were well disciplined. The dress alluded to by the hon. gent. was adopted in some light regiments of cavalry, in consequence of several Germans having come over to this country, who belonged to regiments that dressed in that way. Such dresses were considered as well adapted to cavalry employed at outposts. The saddles they used were particularly useful on such services. Several Hussar regiments were equipped in imitation of the German cavalry, by, order of the Commander in Chief; and he did not see that their dress was more ridiculous than the long tails and the monstrous inconvenient cocked hats, formerly worn by cavalry. If the business of providing for the clothing; of the soldiers was taken out of the hands of the colonels of regiments, it would produce no benefit to the army, nor any saving to the public. The soldiers would not then be so well off as at present; because it was the ambition of a colonel, who always had a regard for his regiment, to make the soldiers have as good an appearance as possible: and he generally spent more for the dress of the
1010
soldiers than was allowed by government for the purpose.
Mr. Whitbreadcongratulated the Church on the vigilance of the two Archbishops, who he conjectured were a few days ago visiting its outposts, as he had discovered them mounted on hussar saddles. [A laugh, and a cry of order!]
Mr. Huskissonthought every thing the hon. member could wish was now fairly in train, and likely to be accomplished. He defended the treasury from any imputation of blame, but reprobated the idea of open-contracts, as tending to raise the price of commodities to government.
Mr. Fullerconcurred with the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread), in ridiculing the dress of some of our regiments, and especially the sudden changes of regimentals, the expence of which had compelled many officers to quit their regiments. Adverting to the scantiness of clothing in some cases, he declared that he had seen instances in which the dress of the soldiers of a regiment had been made so tight, that it had been burst by the sudden contraction occasioned by a shower of rain; and the poor fellows were left with nothing but their shirts to cover a part of their bodies which he would not name. [A laugh.] On the whole, however, he believed that the clothing was conducted on a very equitable principle.—After a few words in explanation, Mr. Wardell withdrew his motions.

MR. PALMER'S CLAIM.
The house was moved, that the last of the Resolutions which, upon the 14th of June, was reported from the committee of the whole house, to whom it was referred to consider further of the supply granted to his majesty, and was then agreed to by the house, might be again read:—And the same was, as agreed to by the house, read accordingly, as followeth, viz. Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding 54,702 l. Os. 7d. be granted to his majesty to be paid to John Palmer, esq. being the balance of the per-centage due to him on the net re venue of the Post Office, from the 5th day of April 1793 to the 5th day of January 1808."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move for a separate bill on that Resolution, instead of allowing it to form a part of the general Appropriation bill. He would stale his reasons for making this proposition, of which he had given due notice, that it might not appear to be a sudden measure. The ordinary course of the house was to put all the grants of the year into the appropriation bill; but, in adopt-

1011
ing the course which he was about to recommend, the house would not act in an unparliamentary or an unprecedented manner. If there ever was a case in which the ordinary course should be deviated from, it was the present, for very strong reasons, which he would distinctly show. With respect to the precedents on this subject, he would submit to the house a great variety of them. In the first place, he would state a number of cases of grants voted in the committee of supply to private individuals, with conditions annexed to them, some of which had beer, carried into effect solely by a separate bill, while others had been incorporated into the appropriation act. The first that he would mention was a vote of the house in a committee of supply, on the 10th of April 1739, of 5000 l. to Mrs. Johanna Steele, on condition that she would with all convenient speed make discovery of her remedy for curing the stone; this vote was carried into effect by a separate bill, and did not appear in the appropriation act. Another vote was on the 28th of Jan. 1731, of 14,000 l. to sir Thomas Blome, as a recompence for the introduction of organzined silk into this country, on the condition that he should produce the models of his mills. This vote was carried into effect by a separate bill, but did make its appearance in the appropriation act. 5000 l. had been voted in a committee of supply, to the family of Mr. Harrison, for his timepiece, on the condition that his executors should, as speedily as possible, explain its construction. This vote was carried into effect by a separate bill, and was also incorporated in the appropriation act: 3,600 l. had been voted in a committee of supply, to Mr. Phillips, on the condition of his discovering the composition of a powder for destroying insects. This vote was carried into effect by a separate bill, which was in the lords; and it did not appear in the appropriation act. Two or three years afterwards Mr. Phillips renewed his application, and the house of commons, in a committee of supply, voted him 1000 l. This vote was carried into effect in a separate bill, which bill was also lost in the house of lords, and it did not appear in the appropriation act.—Thus it appeared that out of these five cases the house adopted one course in three instances, and another course in the remaining two. The same variety of proceeding would appear on an examination of different grants that had been voted for public purposes. In some
1012
cases these votes had been carried into effect solely by separate bills; in others they had been incorporated in the appropriation act. For the construction and improvement of Westminster Bridge various sums had been voted at different periods. On the 13th of May, 1742, 20,000 l.: on the 24th—,1754, 25,000 l. In both these cases the votes had been caried into effect in separate bills, and had not appeared in the appropriation act. On the 27th of June 1742, 25,000 l.; in 1743, 25,000 l.; in 1754, 2,500 l.; all which had been carried into effect by separate bills, but had also been incorporated into the appropriation act. It was evident, therefore, that in these instances, all relating to the same object, the house had been influenced solely by convenience. There were various other similar grants. On the 2d of March 1756, 10,000 l., for widening the streets of Westminster; and in May 1758, 10,000 l. for repairing Milford Haven; which votes were carried into effect by separate bills although they appeared in the appropriation acts. In 1759, 10,000 l. for Milford Haven; on the 9th of May 1759, various sums as compensation for the purchase of lands at Portsmouth and Plymouth; on the 23d of March 1762, 5,000 for paving Westminster, and en the 14th of April 1767, 2,000 l. additional for the same purpose. All these votes were carried into effect by separate bills, and did not appear in the appropriation act. From these various cases it was clear that not only on private but on public grants the house had always exercised its own option on the mode of proceeding.—But, there was another class of cases more nearly resembling that under consideration. They were the grants which had been made without any condition annexed. On the 23rd of December 1707, 2,120 l. 18 s. 6d. had been voted in a committee of supply as due to capt. James Roach for the arrears of the rent of forfeited estates in Ireland, granted to him by act of parliament. This vote was carried into effect by a separate bill, and did not appear in the appropriation act. On the 28th of January 1752, 112, 143 l. was voted to the African company as a compensation for the loss of their chartered lands. This vote had been carried into effect by a separate bill, and was not incorporated into the appropriation act. But one of the most material Cases to which the house ought to attend was that of Rye harbour. On

1013
the 25th of Feb. 1745, the committee of supply voted a grant to his majesty of 23,360 l. out of the sinking fund, to enable the commissioners of Rye harbour to complete the works. The appropriation bill was subsequently brought into the house, but this grant was not included in it: and the committee upon it on the 8th of April was adjourned to a late hour, for the purpose of allowing the vote of money for Rye harbour to be made the subject of a separate bill. Another case had occurred in 1779, of a grant upon the petition of Dr. Smith, as a reward for his having attended sick prisoners in London and Westminster. That petition had been, with some counter petitions, referred to a committee, which made no report. In the year 1781 the petition was renewed, and on the report of a committee, a bill was brought in, and passed the house of commons for granting 1,200 l. to Dr. Smith, which bill was never returned from the lords. It was impossible, after what he had stated, to contend, that it was not perfectly competent to the house to carry its vote into effect, either by separate bill, or by its insertion in the appropriation act. The grant had been voted on grounds not satisfactory to his mind, and though he still retained his former opinion, it was not upon that he proposed the present course. The house had a discretion, and it remained to be considered under what circumstances the house would be disposed to proceed, by a separate bill, or by including the grant in the appropriation act. If no other motive would apply the course that would be most convenient, would be most desirable. In ordinary cases, where there was not likely to be any difference of opinion elsewhere, it might be proper to insert the grant in the appropriation act. But, if there should be any fair reason to suppose such a difference of opinion to exist in that other quarter, that would be good ground for taking the grant out of the appropriation act. The vote proceeded upon an assumption of an agreement between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Palmer, and then assumed that nothing had happened to defeat such contract, and that a bill should be brought in to carry the contract into effect. That house knew that the other house had the matter under their consideration, by having received a message from it, requiring a communication of the evidence upon which they had passed the bill for granting the annuity to Mr. Palmer. Having, by sending up that bill
1014
to the other house, given it an opportunity of exercising an unrestrained judgment upon one part of the case, they should not, by inserting this grant in the appropriation bill, reduce the other house to the alternative of either acceding to a grant, of which it disapproved, or of rejecting the appropriation of the supplies of the year. The right hon. gent. then quoted the authority of Mr. Hatsel, vo l. iii. p. 195, to shew, that tacking one measure to another for the purpose of forcing another branch of the legislature to accede to it, was highly irregular, and a breach of the practice of parliament; but that to do this with a knowledge that the part so tacked was disagreeable to the other branch of the legislature, was highly dangerous and unconstitutional. He admitted that this doctrine had been applied by Mr. Hatsel to the tacking to money-bills measures unconnected with the supply, but contended, that the principle extended to preclude the house from any course that would reduce the other house to the alternative he had stated. If, therefore, the house should see no reason, founded upon parliamentary usage, for declining the course he had to propose, why insert the grant in the appropriation act, why clog the supplies of the year with a measure that would endanger their passing the other house? The proposition upon which the grant rested, was one on which not only the present house of commons entertained a difference of opinion, but a former house of commons had rejected. And there was as much reason to think, that any other assembly would differ from the present house of commons, as that the former house of commons had differed from it. If ever there had been a case in which the grant should be carried into effect by a separate act, it was the present. He should ask any hon. member to shew any case in which two votes founded upon the same principle, had been carried into effect, one by a separate bill, the other by insertion in the appropriation act. If there was no similar case, then this was a new case, and it was competent to the house to exercise its discretion upon it. The house would therefore decide, whether under all the circumstances of the case it would prefer the separate or the general appropriation act. He should move that a bill be brought in pursuant to the resolution of the committee of supply.
The Resolution was entered and read, and on the question being put,
Major Palmerrose and said—Sir; after the indulgence I experienced from the house on the first discussion of this subject, it was not my intention to have obtruded further on their notice; but the many debates which have since occurred, with the motion now made by the right hon. gent. will, I trust, apologize for the observations I presume to offer. I beg leave to remind the house, that this claim was renewed, in the first instance, by a petition, which had induced his maj.'s late administration to consent to the appointment of a committee to examine the evidence upon Mr. Palmer's Agreement with government, taken by a previous committee in the year 1797, and to report their observations; that the late chancellor of the exchequer (lord H. Petty), had proposed the selection of this committee, consisting of the members for counties, principal manufacturing towns, the gentlemen of the long robe and merchants, as being the most competent to decide on the merits of the case, and to make a well grounded, impartial, and every way satisfactory report to the house. The change of administration prevented this appointment at the moment; but, at the meeting of the new parliament, the petition was again received, and the approbation of the present chancellor of the exchequer given for the adoption of the same measure recommended by his predecessor. A committee, thus constituted and appointed, accordingly sat, and after a deliberate investigation of the Evidence laid before them, with the examination of further evidence, made their report. Mr. Palmer, flattering himself that the report of this committee, so selected, could not but be approved, was much surprised and mortified to learn the disapprobation of the chancellor of the exchequer, and from this consideration, in the hope that, during the recess, the right hon. gent. might have the leisure to examine more fully into the merits of the case, Mr. Palmer was advised, and consented to a temporary postponement of his claim.—I am now, sir, to state my own conduct in this affair. On being returned to parliament at the commencement of the present session, I did myself the honour of waiting on the chancellor of the exchequer to learn his sentiments previous to any notice of a motion on the subject. Upon this occasion the right hon. gent. candidly told me, that he should oppose the measure; but on my remonstrating with him on the hardship of Mr. Palmer's
1016
case, that from having contracted with the government of the country instead of an individual, and being thereby precluded an appeal to its laws, he was even to be refused a fair hearing in the only court to which he could apply, the right hon. gent. assured me, that I had no apprehension to feel on that account, as however strongly he might express his own opinion, (and he did not mean to flatter me, but that it would have considerable weight), he was far from wishing to impress that opinion against the conviction of those who were disposed to think well of the claim; and that, if the house decided in its favour, he should be perfectly contented with having performed his duty. The right hon. gent. confirmed this assurance, and satisfied me, beyond a doubt, of the candour of his intentions, by quoting the case of a grant to Dr. Jenner, which he stated had been carried in the previous session against an individual but strenuous opposition on his part.—I thanked the right hon. gentleman very sincerely for his liberality, and told him at the time, that however I lamented his unfavourable impression, and sensible of the influence it must carry, that my own conviction of the justice of the case assured me of its success. At a second interview with the right hon. gent. previous to the Easter vacation, on submitting to him a notice of the intended motion, he obligingly again confirmed the consent of the crown given by the former and present administration; and on my stating that I had repeated the substance of our former conversation to many who had been anxious to learn his sentiments, the right hon. gent. fully admitted it, and strengthened the opinion I entertained of his sincerity. Surely then, sir, after such professions, it was natural for me to hope, upon the discussion of this question, of which so long a notice had been given, and to which I had earnestly intreated the attendance of every individual member, that the right hon. gent. who had equally solicited the attendance of his own friends on the occasion, would have considered the decision of so large a majority in favour of the claim as conclusive of the sense of the house; and that I should at least have experienced the same candour on the part of government, in carrying that decision of the house into effect, which had induced the consent of the crown in the first instance: for I must think it hard, after having overcome what I conceived and fully understood from the right hon. gent.

1017
would be the only difficulty, I should since have been exposed to greater trials, and in which I seem but to have succeeded to embitter the disappointment I am at last to suffer. It is urged, that I have caused the necessity of the present motion, by sending the bill for Mr. Palmer's future per-centage to the lords; but this should be considered the act of the house, and not mine: for how was I to do otherwise than adopt that mode of carrying the previous votes into effect, which had been decided by a large majority; viz. to move for the arrears in a committee of supply, and to bring in a bill for the future percentage? Nor was an idea then entertained, that the arrears once voted in the supplies could be withdrawn. The bill was therefore brought in as matter of course, and which, in the possible event of being thrown out by the lords, might be renewed in any future session. The moment it was hinted that the rejection of the bill in the upper house might endanger the arrears, all thoughts of carrying it there, on my part, were given up: the notice of the third reading was dropped, nor would it have met its fate with the peers, had not the chancellor of the exchequer himself thought proper to send it there, and for that purpose, by moving the third reading. I wish to express no opinion upon the conduct of the right hon. gent. but merely to stand acquitted with the house of having sought the difficulty I am placed in. With respect to the present motion, it is to be viewed in two points, as relating to the house, and to myself. For myself, I must object to it, nor could it be considered but as an act of folly, or hypocrisy on my part to give up what has been established as a right by the repeated votes of this house, for the purpose of bringing in a bill which every one knows must defeat the object it professes. The question, as relating to the house, is of too much consequence to calculate the interest of the individual, and I beg that it may not stand a moment in the way; the only favour I ask of the right hon. gent. is, that he will be satisfied in withdrawing the arrears, if it should be the pleasure of the house, and at least spare me the unnecessary trouble and mortification which the proposed bill must involve. Could I anticipate a fair consideration of the question, so far from avoiding, no one would more anxiously court the discussion than myself. I would submit it to the common sense of any individual in the kingdom who could only read
1018
the evidence, much rather to the most enlightened minds if allowed ah impartial judgment. But, without meaning any disrespect to the noble lords, I feel it to be impossible; and that, were I in the same situation, either wholly ignorant, or but partially informed on the subject, with irresistible prejudices in favour of one party, and those which had been raised against the other—The hon. gent. being here interrupted by the Speaker, who stated, that it was contrary to order to allude to any discussion that had passed in the lords, concluded with saying, that he would no longer detain the house than to repeat his wish that, in the event of the arrears being withdrawn, he might not be compelled to bring in a second bill which must inevitably meet the reception of the first.
Mr. Windham.—Though I cannot, sir, forbear to give my testimony of approbation, in common, I am persuaded, with that of every other gentleman, to the manner in which the hon. member who has just sat down has argued and conducted this business in every part of its progress, and not less so upon the present than on every preceding occasion, yet I must contend that his endeavours ought now to be considered as wholly superfluous, so far as relate either to the merits of the case, or to any interest merely his own; and that the house, having come to a formal adjudication upon the subject, has nothing now to consider but the propriety or impropriety of defending its own decision. It is not a question at the present moment whether what the house decided was right, but whether having so decided, it can, as at present circumstanced, alter its decision. All that the right hon. gent. therefore has been labouring with so much effort, is nothing to the purpose. He has been ransacking the Journals, diving into the depths of parliamentary lore, wasting his time and his pains, and wearing out the eyes of his case-hunter, only to tell us, what nobody ever disputed, that parliament has on different occasions proceeded in both ways, sometimes by a separate bill, and sometimes by introducing grants of the sort in question into appropriation acts. We will admit, if the hon. gentleman wishes it, that the option between these two ways was in the first instance completely open to the house: but the question for us at present is, whether this option continues open to us now. The great edifice, therefore, of the hon. gent.'s learning, however curious and costly, has

1019
been raised upon grounds not belonging to the question, and will stand him in as little stead as the house of a man, who should have built, unfortunately, upon his neighbour's land. What is it to us what the house has done, on occasions similar even, if you please, to the present, but where it had not previously made its election, and where accordingly its choice might be free? We have chosen, and cannot now, without the most flagitious injustice, revert to the situation in which we formerly stood. It is needless, therefore, to inquire, what would be the value of the precedents, which the hon. gent. after searching back for near a century, has been thus able to rake together. I should say that out of the whole lot, excepting perhaps the case of captain Roach, there was hardly one of which any use could be made; and of that or any other that might upon the first view be thought applicable, how little do we know of the circumstances existing at the time, and which might have determined the house to one course or the other! It is enough for us to know, that the case in which we are called upon to act, is a case already decided, and decided by members now no longer present, and who have retired into the country, not from weariness or idleness, or from motives of liking or convenience, but from a firm and just persuasion that all the material business of the session, and unquestionably this part of it, was at an end; and who will feel good reason to complain, (as tile house collectively and the country will have reason to complain), if, the moment they have turned their backs, the whole of what had been done in their presence, and which every one then considered as final, should be thus fraudulently and surreptitiously reversed. Never was there surely such a proceeding attempted, except one, and that, one should have thought, not of a sort which would have been resorted to as a precedent, the change I mean, which was made in the mode of proceeding against lord Melville. The sentiments excited on that occasion, were not of a sort to give much encouragement to those who might wish to have recourse to a similar expedient. I was as strong an advocate as any one for referring the trial of that noble lord, to the tribunal of the house of peers; but the act by which the house of commons changed its decision in that respect, and by trick and surprize recurred to impeachment after having formally and in a full house resolved upon
1020
another course of trial, was in my opinion a most scandalous proceeding, and was one accordingly which I opposed at the time to the utmost of my power. The objection is in one respect more strong in the present instance: because never surely was there a question on which the sense of the house was more fairly taken. What possible idea can honourable gentlemen have, when they talk of this as a party question? A question does not become a party question merely because members of a particular party vote for it; at this rate every question on which the house is unanimous must be a party question: but because members of a particular party vote for it and those only; and even then nothing is thereby decided as to the merits. I should have thought, indeed, that gentlemen on the other side would not have been so fond of describing as a party question, a question in which they have been five times beat, but would have been willing to allow something to the merits of the case, instead of ascribing the whole to the strength of their adversaries. Whatever their wish, however, may be, or whatever, and with more reason, might be our wish, the fact is, that the triumph of Mr. Palmer has not been the triumph of a party, but a triumph of truth and justice. And how indeed in the nature of things could it be otherwise? What possible means has Mr. Palmer of engaging in his favour the sentiments of the house of commons, but through the medium of the opinion which they may entertain of the merits of his case? What boons has he to dispense? What patronage does he possess? What 'advancement' docs any one 'hope from him, who no revenue hath but his good spirits;' either to serve his friends or to contend against his enemies? The hon. gent. will perhaps tell me, that the case, which I had myself alluded to, of the duke of Athol, afforded an instance which I at least cannot dispute, where money had been voted to an individual, upon grounds not very satisfactorily made out. But the hon. gent. must not forget one circumstance, that the noble duke in question, to say nothing of his superior rank and station and numerous connections, before he convinced the house had succeeded in convincing the minister. Nobody ever denied, that the influence possessed in some cases by individuals might be sufficient to gain the assistance of a minister; or that the opinions of a minister might have some

1021
weight in determining the judgment of the house. The question is, what could an individual do, powerful as he might be, without that assistance? I have heard of a man who having made a bet that he and his companion would eat some extraordinary quantity of peaches, when the day came and his friends were in despair, changed all the odds in his favour by tendering for his companion a lean sow. It would be no wonder, if with such an associate, the bet was won with ease. But what would the eater have done without his friend? What would the duke of Athol have done without the minister? And still more, what could Mr. Palmer have done, supposing his cause to have been a bad one, not only without the minister, but with the minister straining every nerve, and calling out 'party question' against him? I suppose an instance could hardly be found, even in the compass of a period as long as that which the hon. gentleman has taken for his precedents, where a question had been decided bearing such certain marks of the real sense and genuine conviction of the house. Yet this is the decision, which we are now called upon to rescind, and in the circumstances which have been described. It is not an appeal from a thin house to a full one, from a hasty tribunal to one more considerate, from 'Philip drunk to Philip sober;' but quite the contrary: the appeal is made from knowledge to ignorance, from deliberation to haste, from a full and general attendance to a scanty and partial one. The bulk of those who had examined the subject and who had qualified themselves to decide upon it, are retired and gone, judging, as well they might, that the business was over, and their attendance no longer necessary. If their places are in any instances supplied, it is by gentlemen, many of whom we have the pleasure of seeing now for the first time since the commencement of the session, and who, having been brought to town unexpectedly, by business no doubt of their own, are just in time to correct this abominable decision, which their colleagues, deliberately indeed but most unadvisedly, had come to. I must, however for my part, formally enter my protest both against their judgment and their jurisdiction. I must both affirm the propriety of the former decision, and utterly deny their competency to reverse it, in the circumstances in which they are placed, even though the former decision should in the first instance
1022
have been ever so objectionable. At this rate, however decided the majority and deliberate the discussion, there is no determination, which the house can have come to during the course of a session, that may not be set aside at the end of it. I protest against the measure proposed, as one of the most disgraceful to the present character of the house, and dangerous by its example, that the house could well be called upon to adopt.
Mr. Hawkins Browneobserved, that this appeared to him a question wholly independent of the merits of Mr. Palmer's case. Acts of appropriation, he thought, ought not to be loaded with any extraneous votes. He must acknowledge, that he had not investigated the particulars of Mr. Palmer's case, and was therefore unable to form a judgment of its merits. Great difference of opinion had not only prevailed upon the subject of this vote in that house, but out of doors; and it was his opinion, that the other branch of the legislature should not be deprived of the opportunity of unrestrained judgment upon the measure. The hon. gent. then entered into a justification of the grant to the duke of Athol, and concluded with expressing a wish that the business should undergo every proper discussion.
Sir Thomas Turton.—Sir, I never rose to submit my observations on any question before the house with greater feelings of concern, or indignation, than I now do on the very extraordinary speech and motion of my right hon. friend. Before I enter on the subject of it I cannot avoid making some observations on the consistency and liberality of the hon. gent. who has just sat down. He prefaced his speech with the acknowledgment 'that he had not been able to investigate the particulars of Mr. Palmer's case, and was therefore unable to form any judgment of its merits,' and yet after this confession, the hon. gent. has had the candour and justice to give a decided opinion on a case, on the particulars of which he has avowed his ignorance. The hon. gent. cannot take it amiss, that I am not inclined to give much weight, or to pay much respect to an opinion so formed. But the hon. member is certainly correct in observing that these merits and claims (on which, however, he has stept out of the way to pass his judgment) cannot affect the vote of to-night, for as the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Windham) has observed, whatever may be the event of the present motion, those claims

1023
will remain unshaken, that debt for ever due to Mr. Palmer by the recognition of this house. The question this night to be decided is, the unwarrantable conduct of his majesty's ministers. Sir, the chancellor of the exchequer, in support of the motion, has quoted the authority of Mr. Hatsell; that is an authority so respectable, that I cannot help reminding the chancellor of the exchequer how unequivocally that authority reprobates the conduct of ministers who give the consent of the crown to measures they mean to oppose. I think he stiles it unparliamentary and unconstitutional. In this I case if we could not expect support, the minister ought to have been neutral. Let us see how his conduct has been consistent even with this. Sir, the proceedings on this subject, down to the fifth and last decision of the house, are fresh in every one's recollection, nor can it be forgotten by the house or the public, that after all the sophistry and ingenuity, after all the fallacious arguments which have been used to mislead and confound the judgment, parliament, in the name of the people of Great Britain, has declared by majorities as respectable and independent as ever carried any motion within these walls, 'That Mr. Palmer is entitled to the advantage of his contract.' I should have hoped, sir, that his majesty's ministers, however pertinacious in their opinion, however mortified by a result so contrary to their expectations and to their usual fortune, would at last have learned, from the steady and honourable resistance to their unjust conduct, a lesson of submission to the so often expressed voice of the parliament. Indeed, sir, I must acknowledge that when I saw this notice on the order book, I was prepared for the withdrawing it, and I really came down to the house under the expectation of it. I cannot, even now, think it will be persevered in. Is a conquest by government, over an individual, the object? Can such a conquest produce a gleam of satisfaction amongst the weakest minded of them? Will they dare to boast of it to this house, which by this motion they have openly insulted; or to the country, who by their representatives, called to the subject by long and repeated notices, with all the documents before them on which to found their opinion, have sanctioned Mr. Palmer's Claim, have recognized the debt and obligation of the country to him, to the extent of the vote in his favour.—But, says the right
1024
hon. mover: 'The house having allowed the Claim of Mr. Palmer, it is only to the mode of voting this sum, that I object: you have put this sum into the Appropriation act, and I am apprehensive that by this means you will endanger passing the supplies of the year through the lords, the consequence of which must be obvious, whereas by the adoption of my present method, you give the other house an opportunity at least to discuss and examine the subject, independent of the other matters which would be affected by it, if they throw out this grant, and in asking this, I am violating no practice or usage of the house, which has frequently adopted this mode on similar occasions.' Sir, I only pray, that I may have patience to examine these reasons, these pretences which have been urged for a line of conduct, which the more it is examined into, the more unfounded in fact, the more disgraceful to its proposers, will it be found. From the first moment in which the intention of his majesty's ministers was announced, I have been afraid to trust myself with the discussion of the subject, and I must confess that during the speech of the right hon. gent. below me, I have with difficulty restrained the impatience and indignation I have felt of the grounds on which this abominable treatment of the house, as well as of the individual, has been justified. Have I not need of patience, sir, to hear it said, that whilst justice to the individual is considered in the mode proposed, the interests of this house and of the country are dependent on it, that it is conformable to the constant usage and practice of it, and that it is in form, not in substance, that this measure differs from the one which the house has already adopted? Well, sir, I have no objection to meet the chancellor of the exchequer on this statement, or that the judgment of the house shall come to an issue upon the truth or fallacy of it. Does the right hon. gent. seriously mean to state that no substantial difference exists between the mode proposed by him, and the one now adopted by the house? Will he even promise, that he and his majesty's other ministers will give their influence and votes to this adopted child of his? Will he give his word to the house, that it is not his intention to strangle this progeny of his, the moment, or within a few days of his giving it birth—when he gets it out of this house? If he will give his promise of support to his own bill, I can have no ob-

1025
jection to its substitution. Do but justice to the individual, respect but the wishes of this house, and we will not quarrel about forms. But, sir, if there could be any doubt what the conduct of government will be, let us look to what has been that of the right hon. gent. already. And here I must directly charge the right hon. gent. with a want of courtesy, an outrage on the common forms and usages of this house from one member to another, which, short as is my experience in parliament, I will venture to say has no parallel. A bill is brought in by me for the payment of the future percentage due to Mr. Palmer, I move the first and second readings of it, in the presence, and with the knowledge of the right hon. gent. Suspecting strongly from the earnestness of his majesty's ministers to have the bill read a third time, coupled with symptoms which appeared elsewhere, that the object of ministers was to pass the bill here, with a view of strangling it in the lords, I declined moving the third reading of it. In my absence, the right, hon. gent. comes down to the house, and himself moves the third reading. He takes it straight to the upper house, and there it receives the death-wound he had prepared for it.—Sir, I do not deny that it is competent to any member to move the reading of a bill introduced by another, in any of its different stages; but, I will ask, is it consistent with the courtesy one has a right to expect-from one gentleman to another within these walls? Is this finesse, this trick, as it now appears, worthy of the minister or the man? But even this is not equal to the hypocrisy and duplicity, which would seriously urge this measure, as one only of form, not of substance, which would represent it as doing justice to the party concerned, whilst its sole object was to avoid the danger of misunderstanding between the two branches of the legislature. Will the chancellor of the exchequer avow that such is his sole intention? I am sure he will not; he knows that his intention is, by this subterfuge, by this unworthy proceeding, to defraud Mr. Palmer of his just rights, and to counteract the intentions of parliament so often expressed.—Sir, the insult to the individual, by this argument, and by these pretences, is trifling in comparison with that with which he dares to treat the house. After having been five times told, in the independent language of parliament, that if individuals cannot obtain justice out of doors, they shall within its walls; even
1026
from the minister himself, supported as he needs must be, with great and commanding majorities on most occasions, one should have hoped, and expected, that the decent respect due from him to the voice of parliament, expressed through organs, which could be only influenced by the principles of justice in voting the public money, would have induced the right hon. gent. to bow to an authority so satisfactory and convincing, so entirely exonerating him from all responsibility, or at least, that he would not have insulted the house, by an open disregard of its votes, by this sovereign contempt for its decision, by coming at this late period of the session, when most of its independent members are out of town, and the friends and dependents of government composing the greater part of the house. Was ever so marked, so contemptuous a disregard of the voice of parliament? Was ever so unworthy a finesse practised by the first minister of the government on the house?—So much for the manner in which the right hon. gent. has brought forward this motion. And now, sir, as to his justification on the score of precedent; he has certainly favoured us with a number of precedents, of special bills, brought in for grants to individuals, which he tells us are applicable to the present case; and, he adds, "that it is not even a general, much less an universal, rule to include such grants of money in the appropriation act."—Sir, I am now at issue with the right hon. gent.; for I maintain, and I defy the disproval of my assertion, that there is no one instance, on the journals of your house, of a sum of money, due as a debt to an individual, which has not been voted in the appropriation act. I will put the whole of this case on the truth or falsehood of this assertion; no one will dispute that this is a debt due from the public to an individual; an acknowledged one, recognized by the votes, and solemn resolutions of this house. It must, therefore, be voted in the manner all similar sums are voted. But what are these precedents of bills, which are said to apply to this case? I really am astonished that the right hon. gentleman should insult our understandings, by attempting to impose these cases on us as in any degree similar to the present. What was the case of Mrs. Stevens? a conditional remuneration? Mr. Philips's the same. The condition unperformed, the remuneration would not be bestowed. How,

1027
but by a bill, could such a grant be made? 'But,' says the right hon. gent. 'these were certainly conditional, and I am afraid do not quite apply;' but then he adds, triumphantly, 'the case of Mr. Roche was an absolute debt, money acknowledged to be due, and yet a bill was brought in for this purpose.' Now, sir, if this be the case which is to direct our votes to night, the right hon. gentleman must shew, that it is entirely applicable to the one in question. Most certainly the right hon. gentleman has a great advantage over us, in the production of cases which we have not the opportunity of examining; but here the right hon. gentleman has stated particulars enough of this, to shew that it has no more analogy to Mr. Palmer's, case, than their treatment of him has with equity and justice. For, what is this case? A sum of money, he does not say for what purpose, is originally voted to be paid, not in the usual way, but out of certain forfeited estates, the property assigned for payment turns out not productive to the supposed extent; end, therefore, the house is called upon to make good the deficiency. From the peculiar nature of the fund to pay the grant, the remedy for the deficiency of that fund would, of course, be by bill, because it would recite the former grant, and the cause of the second application. How, then, is this in the least applicable to Mr. Palmer's case, which is a debt voted to be paid out of the supplies of the year; and, according to the usual practice, put in the Appropriation act? Sir, I will not take up the time of the house by going further into these flimsy precedents, which are insulting to our understandings if it is pretended that they apply to the present case.—I will only ask one question of the right hon. gentleman on them all: Is there one of them, wherein the minister, professing to act with justice to an individual, whose general merit he recognizes, introduces a bill for a grant of money to him, with the certainty that it will be thrown cut in the lords, and with the intention of using his endeavours, and those of his colleagues, that such should be the fate of it? If he has not such a case, he has none applicable. Sir, I have only now to trouble the house with a few words on the apprehended danger in the lords, if this vote goes to the upper house in its usual way. If there is any danger, who have occasioned, who have invented it? his majesty's ministers. Have they not the means of averting it? Will they,
1028
with their tenderness for our mutual friendship, exert those means of preserving it they have in their power? If so, do they doubt of success? I think not. Sir, I must acknowledge I feel disgusted with the whole conduct of ministers, from the commencement of this business; I have usually given them my support, they have now my complete reprobation. When I look round the house, and see the extent and nature of the attendance this night, I have no doubt of the event of its vote; I see the whole force of government exerted to obtain a triumph, but which, when obtained, will disgrace them. For, what is it? the success of government in the oppression of an individual, who, even in their estimation, is a most meritorious one but this is the least part, it is a triumph obtained by finesse and stratagem over the reiterated sense of a great and independent majority of this house. Will such a triumph increase the credit of government out of doors? And this, sir, done in violation of, and with a sovereign contempt for, the forms and usages of this house; forms and usages which, to use the words of the right hon. gentleman himself, when he assisted in placing you, sir, in that chair, so honourably and usefully filled by you, 'are the very essence of the constitution.' Will this raise the credit of government within doors? Sir, I have done. I am wearied with the subject; I never discussed one with more pain and regret. I have not been long a member of this house, but, I confess, that my respect for its character has not been increased by what I have witnessed in the course of one short fortnight. The weight of government, and the votes of ministers, given in defence of a delinquency, no one of them, except a noble lord (Castlereagh) implicated in the guilt, dared to defend; and every engine of oppression, every finesse, and unworthy manœuvre practised by the same government, to defraud a meritorious servant of the public, not of a reward, not of a claim, but of a debt due. and acknowledged by this house; two such instances, I must acknowledge, have not raised either the house or ministers in my estimation. I am, indeed, heartily sick of both. Let me, however, conjure the house to preserve its consistency and character, by-rejecting this motion, as unworthy its countenance. You have already resolved, that Mr. Palmer is entitled to this money. Defeat not this resolution by your vote of to-night; recollect this gentleman is not

1029
asking you for a pension for political services; he asks you not for a reversion to those who can have personally had no merit; he does not even ask you for the payment of services, not commensurate with the reward; he has bargained with you for 50 s. on every hundred pounds which his ingenuity and industry have procured you. Will you deny it to him, after having five times determined his right to it? If you do, I shall repeat what I have before said, that a man had better take the bond of the veriest swindler of the country, than the verbal contract of a minister. Sir, I trust the house will not countenance this motion; that it will not be alarmed at the apprehensions ministers have expressed, and which they know how to allay. I apprehend no rupture between the houses, why should there be any? But if there was a danger of it, is that to deter us from doing our duty? Let us, at least, do our part of the justice due to this individual, fearless and disdainful of the consequences, fiat justitia, ruat cœlum. An honest man has but one line of conduct here, let him do his duty as a representative of the people, as an honest and conscientious member of the British senate. Sir, I sit down, with the most complete reprobation of this motion, and by giving it my unqualified and determined negative.
Mr. G. Johnstonedefended his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer from the imputations of the hon. baronet, who, if confirmed in the opinions he expressed of his right hon. friend, ought not to have addressed him as he had done. He thought his right hon. friend deficient in firmness and decision in not refusing, in the first instance, the king's consent to Mr. Palmer's application; but when he did give this consent, he had distinctly stated, that he gave it only that the question should be investigated, and at the same time declined any pledge upon the subject. All the cases quoted by his right hon. friend appeared to him to be perfectly in point. He then contended, that the measure should be sent up to the lords in a shape in which that house should have an opportunity of exercising their unfettered discretion and judgment.
Mr. Tierney.—Sir; I congratulate the chancellor of the exchequer on the splendid figure he makes in the estimation of two of his leading supporters. By the one (sir T. Turton) he is described as having exerted all the influence of government
1030
to bear down and overpower a meritorious individual, and, by surprise, to strangle a claim confirmed by no less than five separate Resolutions of the house. By the other (Mr. G. Johnstone) he is charged with a want of firmness and decision, in not refusing, in the first instance, the king's consent to Mr. Palmer's application. Both his friends have aptly characterized his conduct on the present occasion. If he really thought the vote of the house in 1797 had equitably and finally decided on the merits of Mr. Palmer's case, it was his duty, and he ought to have had firmness enough to discharge it, not to have allowed his majesty's sanction to be given to any renewed discussion of the question; and, on the other hand, after having seen Mr. Palmer's Claim, when again brought forward, recognized and solemnly confirmed as a debt of justice, by five distinct votes of the house, the expedient he now has recourse to, to defeat our determinations, exposes him, and most justly, to the severe and unqualified censures heaped upon him by his hon. friend, the worthy baronet behind the treasury bench. It is, indeed, a dark and unworthy attempt, to endeavour, by the weight of government and by a secret manœuvre at the end of the session, and in the absence of those who have long since left town under the natural impression that Mr. Palmer's Claim was definitively carried, to frustrate the wishes, and substantially to discredit the Resolutions of the house of commons, which when the attendance of members was full, and the subject fairly before us, the right hon. gentleman could neither resist nor set aside. I must presume he means to give the house a warning of what it is to out-vote a chancellor of the exchequer, and to convince us, that such a proceeding is not to be had with impunity. His pride has been offended, and parliament is to pay the forfeit. That he should have felt mortified, I cannot doubt, for I believe no other chancellor of the exchequer was ever five times in a minority on a grant of public money; and the reason is obvious, namely, that his majesty never, till now, gave us a chancellor of the exchequer who had not the prudence to abstain from proposing that which was not likely to succeed, or the wit to take an early hint and retreat white he could do it without disgrace.—The question is, Whether a vote in the Committee of Supply of a grant of money for the payment of a debt declared to be due to an individual, should form an item in the

1031
Appropriation act, or be made the subject of a separate bill. The object of the mode proposed by the right hon. gentleman, viz. a separate bill, is to give the lords an opportunity to defeat the grant, without that degree of public inconvenience which would result, if, being sent up to them in the Appropriation Act, they were, by way of amendment, to leave it out; the consequence of which must be, either a total stop to the supplies of the year, or an immediate prorogation and a new session.— The right hon. gent. endeavours to defend his measure by precedents, and a curious collection he has produced. Here Mr. Tierney recapitulated and commented upon all the precedents which had been cited, in order to shew, that only one of them in any degree applied to the case in hand. That was a vote of 1,200 l. in 1781 to a Dr. Smith, for his care in visiting certain hospitals, and was made the subject of a separate bill, instead of being put, as, said Mr. Tierney, it ought to have been, in the Appropriation act of the year. What induced the house in that case to depart from the established usage, I know not, but this I know, that that proceeding was warranted by no direct precedent then existing, and that it has not itself been adopted as a precedent in anyone instance since. What I contend for is, that according to our established practice, the grant voted to Mr. Palmer ought to be sent to the lords in the Appropriation act; and even if the right hon. gentleman had, by the diligence of some industrious clerk, been enabled to pick up two or three stray precedents in the course of the last hundred years, it would not justify his present attempt, which I maintain to be in the teeth of the broad line, of policy which has regulated the proceedings of the commons for above a century, and upon which your opinion, sir, has lately been given in a manner so clear and forcible, that it would be presumptuous in me to do more than to quote your authority for the doctrine fur which I am contending. It is, however, material to remind the chancellor of the exchequer, that but a few weeks have elapsed since, on this very question in another shape, by that authority he regulated his own vote.—But, it is asked, whether we would exclude the lords from exercising their judgment on this grant to Mr. Palmer, without being obliged, if they differed from us, to alter the Appropriation act, and thereby, in effect, to stop the whole supplies of the year,
1032
and then we are favoured with a display of tender anxiety for the situation in which their lordships will be placed, if we reduce them to so painful an alternative. My answer is, I ask you to do no more than what the established practice of the commons, acquiesced in by the lords, warrants, and I have no parliamentary grounds for believing that the lords would, on this occasion, depart from their own established practice, and for the first time alter an Appropriation act. I will not admit that I am to be called upon to assign the reasons for the commons pursuing a course which some may chuse to call an encroachment upon the lords. It is sufficient for me to know, that the course which I suggest is that which has been hitherto practised without inconvenience or remonstrance. Where shall we end, if once we begin to discuss the justice and propriety of the privileges we have long asserted? You may ask, why the lords should not as well as the commons, originate or alter a Money bill, and if you search the books, you may, perhaps, rind some plausible arguments used on behalf of the other house, to prove that they have an equal authority with ourselves; but, the answer at this day is simple. We have long insisted upon this as our exclusive privilege, and the lords have long been content silently to acquiesce. By what right, it may be demanded, do we resolve that a peer shall not vote at an election? It is a sufficient answer that we have for a great length of time annually passed that resolution, and that, in fact, peers do not now claim to vote. will I not argue these and other questions of a similar nature. Practically, they are at rest; and education and habit have taught us to consider them as points established by the wisdom and firmness of our ancestors, which it is our duty to maintain unimpaired. At any rate, it is not here that a debate upon the propriety of them should begin.—I have shewn how unsuccessful; the right hon. gentleman has been in citing precedents, to prove that grants of money to individuals voted in a Committee of Supply have been sent up to the other house in separate bills. It remains to examine what precedents are to be found in favour of their insertion in the Appropriation act; even when of a nature to excite discussion and probable difference of opinion, full as much as the grant to Mr. Palmer. The right hon. gentleman does not even pretend to have discovered

1033
a precedent to his purpose since the year 1781.—The case of a Dr. Smith has been mentioned, where the proceeding was by a bill, afterwards thrown out in the lords, An hon. gentleman, (Mr. Wilberforce) will recollect the case of another Dr. Smith, in 1804. Whether he was alarmed at what passed in 1781, I know not, but the hon. member, in order to save his medical I friend from all danger elsewhere, after the Report of a committee of this house in his favour, moved an address to his majesty, praying that he would bestow on Dr. Carmichael Smith, the sum of 5,000 l. and assuring him this house would make good the same. Here was 5,000 l. given to an individual, without the fact being, in any form, announced to the lords; for all that came before them was, that the Appropriation act of the next year contained, in one item, a large sum 'to make good monies issued pursuant to addresses.' This included the 5,000 l. for Dr. Carmichael Smith, and was voted in the other house without either question or difficulty: I mention this case, the rather as it may serve to comfort the hon. gentleman, and others who appear to think, that to put Mr. Palmer's grant into the Appropriation act would be unwarrantable, and betray a want of becoming respect towards the lords. Let them look into the Statute Book and they will take courage. They will find that the lords are much more reasonable than to-night it is the fashion to suppose them. In every session it will be seen, that their lordships have been content to sanction in the Appropriation act a large sum of Supply, of the nature and application of which they knew nothing, but that it was to replace payments made pursuant to addresses of this house. I know of no form which would stand in the way of an address to his majesty in favour of Mr. Palmer.—In 1805, Messrs. Chalmers and Cowie petitioned the house to indemnify them from a heavy loss they had sustained by the importation of herrings during the scarcity, at the suggestion of government. A committee was appointed to examine into their claim, and they had a vote for 25,000 l. by way of compensation for their losses. This sum was inserted in the Appropriation act, which was passed by the lords as usual without any amendment; and yet what did the lords know, or require to know, of the claim of Chalmers and Cowie?—In 1805, there was a grant of 1,000,000 l. to the East India Company, being on account
1034
of a debt due to them from the public, as reported by a committee of this house. This sum was also inserted in the Appropriation act, and was passed without difficulty by the lords. A grant on similar grounds of 1,500,000 l. to the East India Company has been voted in the present session; and though made matter of much debate here, I have not heard that it is to be put into a separate bill that the lords may have an opportunity to discuss it; and yet their lordships know nothing of it, but that it is a debt declared by the commons to be due. So is Mr. Palmer's.—In 1804, a sum of 260,000 l. was voted to the officers employed with lord Hood as the value of ships said to have, been destroyed at Toulon. This sum, too, made part of an Appropriation act which was passed without comment, by the lords. Several grants to American loyalists, as compensation for losses sustained, will also be found in the Appropriation acts of the last ten years, and one to an amount of not less than 20,000 l. in the present session. In all these cases, this house satisfied itself of the justice of the various claims preferred by the individuals, but did not think it necessary to give the lords any opportunity of discussing the merits of them, beyond what the Appropriation act afforded; neither did their lordships require it. If any thing were wanting to prove how little the commons have felt it to be their duty to consult the particular convenience of the other house, with respect to grants of money, it might be found in the sums annually voted for Maynooth College, which have been in the last and present session both increased and diminished. Maynooth College gentlemen know is a seminary for the education of catholic priests, and they cannot but recollect the various and interesting debates which took place in this house respecting the amount to be granted for its support; and yet, the chancellor of the exchequer himself consented to put the larger sum voted in the last session without comment or explanation into the Appropriation act. Why did he not bring in a separate bill? Does he mean to say, that the subject of a grant to Mr. Palmer is more interesting to the lords than the increase of catholic priests in Ireland? Does he not know that there are noble lords particularly alive to whatever relates to Maynooth College? Would he compel them to expose the Protestant Church to what they think the most dreadful additional dangers, or else to stop the supplies

1035
of the year? Sir, the chancellor of the exchequer must see, that he can only justify himself upon the principles I have been laying down; for, if I am wrong, and his doctrine be admitted, then were the hardships he imposed upon the poor lords with respect to Maynooth College, most wanton and intolerable, and all zealous protestants would feel it the more so as coming from the same quarter with the cry of 'No Popery!' But the right hon. gentleman takes this distinction; he says, and truly, that one part of the grant to Mr. Palmer, namely, the future annuity, must be provided for by a separate bill, and then he contends, that no instance can be produced where one part of a grant has been put into the Appropriation act, and the other into a separate bill. I answer by referring him to the case of lord Nelson, where he will find 90,000 l. voted for the purchase of an estate to be settled on the heirs of lord Nelson, and 10,000 l. to enable, the first earl to compleat his establishment. The former of these votes was carried into effect by a separate bill, and the latter was confined to the Appropriation act. I will not trouble the house with more cases, though many might easily be adduced, to support the doctrine I contend for—that grants of money, voted in a Committee of Supply, without any prospective condition annexed to them, ought, according to the established practice of this house, to be inserted in the Appropriation act, and not made the subject of a separate bill. The instances I have quoted are sufficient to shew, that the lords have manifested no jealousy upon this head, and that hitherto they have been content to abstain from insisting upon that which to-night we seem desirous, unasked, to concede. Let it not be forgotten, that over the amount of the sums voted for the army, navy, and ordnance, the lords have no controul but by throwing out the Appropriation act. It is by that act only that they are informed of the number of seamen and soldiers annually provided for; and that provision they can neither increase nor diminish, without stopping the whole supplies of the year. In a war like the present, is the strength of the army and navy of less importance than the acknowledgment of a debt due to Mr. Palmer? It is asked, Whether we shall be justified in pursuing a course with respect to Mr. Palmer, which there is reason to suppose the lords will resist, and by their resistance subject the country to the inconvenience
1036
of an immediate, prorogation and a new session. To this I say, first, that I do not believe the fact that the lords would alter the Appropriation act, notwithstanding what has been whispered about; and next, that, if they should, the responsibility is upon them and not upon us. We do no more than follow the established course of proceeding. It will be for their lordships to consider, whether, on their part, they will act discreetly in amending, for the first time, the Appropriation act, and thereby stopping the supplies. The lords and not the commons will produce the inconvenience; and it will be for them, therefore, to shew, that the case of Mr. Palmer is so different from any which has ever come before them, that it calls for an unprecedented exercise of power, and warrants an unheard of interruption to public affairs.—The merits of Mr. Palmer's Claim are no longer before us. They have been solemnly decided upon by five distinct resolutions of the house, supported by gentlemen of different political parties and opinions. What relates to Mr. Palmer is, therefore, disposed of, and the question now is, whether the house will carry into effect, according to the established course of its proceedings, its own deliberate decisions. It pleases the chancellor of the exchequer to move for leave to bring in a separate bill on the part of Mr. Palmer, not only without his consent but against his express desire. The right hon. gent. will not, I am sure, deny, that his object in so doing is to defeat the determination of the house, by enabling his friends in the lords with the more ease to crush an individual whose claims on our justice, with all his exertions, he has not here had sufficient strength to resist. Our vote of this night will shew, whether we can stoop to be made the instruments of such a manœuvre; whether we can be brought to throw discredit upon our own resolutions, and from an unworthy apprehension of the power of the lords be induced to adopt a course derogatory to the privileges of the commons.
Mr. Bankes.—Sir, I cannot, I must own, discover any reason why the lords should be debarred the liberty of examining a subject like this, founded on the existence or non-existence of a contract, especially when they have the right of administering oaths to extort truth, at the bar of their house, and especially as there are so many cases produced to show that this is not an unusual mode of proceeding. I have paid

1037
great attention to the conduct of his majesty's ministers in this affair, and must own, I cannot perceive in what respect it has merited the severe reproach cast upon it by hon. gentlemen.—Sir, as I consider Mr. Palmer's right to what he claims, to be confirmed by the votes of this house, it would be useless for me to repeat the opinion I have already expressed, especially as the present question is certainly unconnected with the justice or injustice of the case. As I approve of the present motion, I shall give my voice towards its being carried into effect.
Mr. Ponsonby.—Sir, there is certainly no necessity for calling on the other house to Interfere in an investigation like the present. This house alone is the best judge of the appeal; here is now no question of interpretation of contract, but a plain question of fact already determined by a decision of this house; but the right hon. gent. in contempt of that grave decision, established by five distinct and large majorities, has made his present motion to the house. The right hon. gent. I think acted right in giving the consent of the crown, if he had intended to support the measure, or at least to have stood neuter; but his conduct has been extremely faulty in giving the house the trouble of debating a question like this, when he was determined that their endeavours should be frustrated in the manner now proposed.— The hon. gent. who spoke last says there are many precedents in support of this motion; now, after a most diligent search for upwards of one hundred years, there are just six produced, and even those have scarcely any connection with this question; yet the honorable gentleman appeals to the number of precedents in support of the motion! The same hon. gent. advises caution in our proceedings, for it would be extremely inconsistent (he says) to compel the lords to grant the arrears, when they have rejected the future remuneration. Now, that they would reject the arrears also, is certainly a non sequitur, for they might think this sum a sufficient reward, and the future grant too much. I do not say it is very probable, but it is certainly very possible.—This certainly is the first time I ever heard the house of commons should pursue a measure contrary to its own resolutions, merely out of compliment to the lords. The method of tacking bills, as it is called, to the Appropriation act, may, certainly, in some instances be mischievous; but if this house
1038
had not been pretty firm in money affairs, it would, ere this, have lost one of its greatest privileges.—For what motive, sir, did the house declare its favourable opinion on this case, in nine different debates? Why, that Mr. Palmer should be paid his debt; and, for what motive has the right hon. gent. made this motion to the house? Why, to render nugatory that well weighed and repeatedly pronounced decision. I think the house must be strangely infatuated to cringe thus to the house of lords. If the house thought their vote was wrong, surely the most manly way would be to rescind that vote; but, no; the right hon. gent. has not brought forward one single argument to invalidate the grant in any respect, and surely it will require some stronger motive than the obstinacy of a chancellor of the exchequer, and a few straggling unsuiting precedents, to induce this house to act in the mean, shabby, and evasive manner he has proposed to us.—The right hon. gent. was placed by his sovereign in the situation which he now fills, with the hopes, that his conduct would be such as would engage the confidence and conciliate the support of this house. Now, I will ask the right hon. gent. whether he thinks any part of his conduct towards Mr. Palmer has been calculated to effect either of those intentions. No; for it is impossible the house can have any confidence in the man who is placed here as the guardian of their rights, when they see that very man the first to attack their liberties, and to endeavour to rob them of one of their dearest privileges.—It is ridiculous, sir, to dispute Mr. Palmer's demands, upon the ground of his not deserving them. His services are not dubious. No, sir, they are self evident. He only claims, what the house has repeatedly acknowledged to be his stipulated due, viz. 50 shillings for every 2,000 that he gives you! Sir; this house never agreed to a money bill altered in the most trivial way by the lords, yet this motion is really inviting them to throw out our own bill. Then, surely, the motion which may produce such a consequence, we should treat with indignation. If this house once doubts its exclusive authority over money affairs, it gives up its own and the public's greatest boast, a power which forms the very basis of the liberties of England. Will the chancellor of the exchequer declare that he has any other motive for bringing forward this motion, than a wish to defeat the vote of

1039
this house? And to effect that wish he has acted in the most unmanly and unworthy way, and has concealed his intentions because he had not weight nor argument enough to convince the house that they were acting wrong. As the right hon. gent. is so very expert in rummaging out precedents, I wish he would show me a precedent of a chancellor of the exchequer ever having acted, since the revolution, in the way he has done towards Mr. Palmer. Sir, the magnitude of Mr. Palmer's services are universally acknowledged, his demands are completely ratified, and if the house supports this motion, it commits an act not only dangerous to the privileges of parliament, but also to the privileges of the people.
Mr. Rosesaid that if there was a necessity for more precedents he could certainly produce them. The object of this motion was to give the lords an opportunity of judging, of the merits of Mr. Palmer's Claim. The majority of grants made to individuals were by separate bills, and not by a clause in the Appropriation act. As a proof of this, the right hon. gent. cited the grants to Dr. Smith, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Stephens. He was extremely sorry that he was again obliged to allude to Mr. Palmer's official conduct, but really, after the perusal of the letters written by Mr. Palmer, and after examining the evidence before them, how the house could have supported Mr. Palmer as it had done, was to him a matter of great surprise.
Mr. Fuller,with considerable warmth, declared that the lords had not the least authority over Money bills, and as long-as he had a vote they should never interfere in that or any other established right. The house of commons alone was the proper guardian of the public purse. He was very sorry to see the hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) so captious and fretful, when his own bill was lately thrown out of the other house, and he was more so, when he saw him lend his countenance to a measure like this, entrenching on the dearest privileges of the constitution. The hon. gent. seemed to think that his opinion would have a great effect on the house. It reminded him of a beautiful passage in Shakspeare. His quiddities and cranks mantled like a standing pool,' and again 'I am sir Oracle, when I speak, let no dog bark.' Though he was decidedly of opinion that Mr. Palmer's Claims were founded in justice, he did not think they were at all at stake that night, but that the house should
1040
use every effort to maintain its dignity and insist upon its privileges; for if they supported the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, they would be looked upon as the poorest and most submissive creatures in existence.
Sir Francis Burdett.—I would not, sir, at this late hour, trespass on the patience of the house, had not the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Rose) reflected on Mr. Palmer's character, in a manner which, so far from being justified by the evidence, is completely refuted. The right hon. gent. has again reverted to his favourite argument of the letters; and from them has attempted to infer that Mr. Palmer did not act with integrity. Now, my lord Walsingham was asked by the committee, whether he had ever any reason to doubt Mr. Palmer's personal integrity? the noble lord's answer was, "No, never in the smallest degree." And my lord Chesterfield, to the same question, gave exactly the same answer; and these were the last persons to be supposed favourable to Mr. Palmer. Is it, then, to be supposed, that if any circumstance had occurred to justify such an assertion, that they would have withheld the publication of it? I think those Letters contain nothing but what is very excusable; for when we consider, that Mr. Palmer had embarked his honour, his reputation, his fortune, and every thing that was dear to him, on this undertaking, and that if it had failed, every thing he had staked must fall with it, we can hardly imagine he would have expressed himself more mildly in a confidential letter of those, who, he had good reason to believe, were using every endeavour in their power, under the veil of office, to thwart his plans, destroy his hopes, and render abortive all his expectations of realizing the great considerations he had ventured on his success. Yet even admitting Mr. Palmer's alleged indiscretion beyond a doubt, the public word is given, and it must be redeemed or forfeited by the conduct of this house. Mr. Palmer's deserts and the equity of his demands have been copiously debated, and have been honourably confirmed and admitted by five very large majorities. They must, therefore, be considered as entirely separate from this night's contest. We are this night to assert or resign a privilege, which has always been considered a peculiar and established right. I do think it a most impolitic step, if we resign one inch of our peculiar liberties: for surely there cannot

1041
be discovered a more dangerous, a more mischievous precedent, than yielding ever so small a concession, to the other branch of the legislature in pecuniary matters. For the sake of its own privileges, its own dignity, its own consistency, the house should reject this motion, especially when it is obvious that the design is to set at nought and reverse an opinion, solemnly declared and delivered by the house on five different nights.
Mr. Burtondenied that the general merits of the case of Mr. Palmer formed the question now before the house. The only question was, how the vote passed by this house, and to be adhered to so far as this house was concerned, should be sent to the lords, whether in the Appropriation Act, or in a separate bill. He maintained that all the circumstances of the case particularly called for a separate bill.
Mr. Whitbreadwished that the Speaker was at liberty to enter into the debate and give some opinion as to the accuracy of the proceedings of the chancellor of the exchequer, but the right hon. gent. had prudently availed himself of the silence imposed upon that great authority by his being placed in the chair: he had valiantly marched to the attack of the battery when the great gun was spiked: for as to the precedents he had produced, he did not think they gave the least support to the correctness of the right hon. gent.'s conduct.—The hon. gent. besought every member who heard him not to be cajoled into the idea that it was the intention or wish of the chancellor of the exchequer that the present bill should pass the house of lords. What was his conduct as minister of the crown? He came down to the house and moved the passing of a bill, for a grant which he professed to disapprove. Surely, the right hon. gent. placed himself in a very aukward predicament; for it must be his intention either to cheat the public or to cheat Mr. Palmer. If the grant was an unjust one, he cheated the public; if the grant was right, by the trick resorted to, to defeat it, he would cheat Mr. Palmer. He was very happy to see an hon. and learned gent. who had been so long absent from the house on account of his indisposition, in his place, as he was sure the name of sir Vicary Gibbs would be added to the supporters of Mr. Palmer's Claim, as he had the precedent of his predecessor who had also supported it, who acted without the same favourable occurrence of having the late
1042
attorney general to set him the example. The chancellor of the exchequer had said, he was fearful if this grant was included in the Appropriation Act, that the lords might reject the whole bill: but, were his majesty's ministers weak enough in understanding to imagine such a thing: or were they weak enough in power to allow such a thing? But, even if they did reject the whole Appropriation bill, that might be recovered, but the honour of the house could never be restored, if Mr. Palmer's Claim was not discharged. The present motion was for the purpose of entrapping the house, as many hon. members had quitted town under the idea that the business had passed the house and was completely settled. He thought if the right hon. gent. gained the victory, it would be a victory over the house of commons, over the constitution, and whatever of law and justice remained in the house.
Mr. Canningsaid, the merits of Mr. Palmer's case formed no part of the question before the house. The only question was, in what manner the house should carry its decision into effect? The precedents were not all on one side. There were some for the course proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, and the house was free to follow the line that should please it. He censured the objection to referring the whole question to the lords, because that house could examine witnesses on oath to the matters of fact. He insisted on the constitutional impropriety of sending the present, business to the lords, otherwise than in a separate bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied in his reply, that giving the recommendation of the crown so as to bring a measure under the consideration of the house, implied an obligation to support it in its progress through the house. He also vindicated his conduct in proposing this bill, on the knowledge that the house of lords was examining the agreement with Mr. Palmer. —The house then divided:

For the Motion

186

Against it

63

Majority

—123

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
On the motion that the Stamp Duties bill be read a first time,
Lord Hollandrose to observe upon the extreme importance and complexity of the measure. It was one which, in his opinion, required and deserved a minute and mature consideration. It was therefore proper the house should have it before them in a legible and accessible form. His lordship then moved that the bill be printed.
Lord Hawkesburyobserved, that it was not the practice to print bills of this sort, nor did he see of what utility it could prove to have the bill printed. He must therefore resist the motion of his noble friend.
The Earl of Lauderdale and the duke of
996
Norfolk insisted on the propriety of having the bill printed, as otherwise it would be impossible to come at a perfect knowledge of its provisions. Lord Hawkesbury repeated his objections to the printing of the bill; upon which, lord Holland said, he felt it his duty to take the sense of their lordships upon the question. The house then divided: Contents Mi; Not-contents 28.—Majority 12.

BANK OF IRELAND CHARTER BILL.
The Earl of Lauderdalerose pursuant to notice, to move that the opinion of the Judges be taken upon certain clauses of this bill, which regulated the amount of the notes which the Bank was empowered to issue, and the distribution of any surplus that might arise to the subscribers. According to the accounts on the table, it appeared that the bank had issued notes to a larger amount than that to which by the bill it was limited; and that the subscribers had subscribed only the same sums as before. He was at a loss to see where was the necessity of providing for the distribution of the overplus. This latter clause surely contained as gross a bull as ever was imported from Ireland.
The Earl of Limerickrose to order. He could not sit silent and hear reflections thrown out upon the country to which he belonged, nor would he tolerate them from any noble lord.
The Earl of Lauderdalemeant no disrespect to Ireland; he had often been rallied himself on the accent he had brought from his country, without being hurt at it. The best authorities considered bulls as the offspring of a quick imagination. But surely an act of parliament was not the most suitable place for exhibiting flights of fancy.
The Lord Chancellorsaw no necessity for consulting the Judges on the clauses referred to by the noble baron. As a lawyer, he might take upon him to say that the Judges would give no opinion as to the illegality or obscurity of the clauses; but he was not now delivering the opinion of a lawyer.—After a few words from lord Lauderdale, the motion was negatived without a division.—The bill was then read a third time and passed.

PROTEST AGAINST THE BANK OF IRELAND CHARTER BILL.
On the passing of this Bill, the following Protest was entered on the Lords Journals: viz. "1st, Because this act sanctions the prolongation of the Charter of the Bank of Ireland from the year 1816, at which time that corporation

997
might, on notice, have been dissolved, to the year 1837, and thus confirms the valuable exclusive privileges it now enjoys for thirty years, on terms most inadequate and improvident, as must appear from the following short statement:—The agreement on the part of the bank, to manage the public debt of Ireland, free of all charges and expense, gives the public a sum amounting nearly to 7,525 l. per ann. the commission the Bank at present receives on that account.—But the public have given to the Bank 5 per cent, for the sum of 1,250,000 l. they might have borrowed at 4l. 14 s. 6d. the interest at which money has been actually raised this year by the government of Ireland; 3,437 l. being the difference betwixt 62,500 l. the interest of 1,250,000 l., at 5 per cent, and 59,062 l., the interest of the said sum at 4l. 14 s. 6d. per cent, must therefore be taken from 7500 l. the public have acquired; and it will then appear, that an annuity of 4,088 l. is the full amount of the pecuniary consideration given for the extension of this valuable privilege.—Further, the duration of this trifling remuneration is no way guarded by the act; it may expire within a short time, and the public, whilst the bank are in full enjoyment of the privileges conferred on them, may be compelled to make a new agreement for the charges of that part of the public debt which may be managed in Ireland; for this act contains no provision compelling the bank of Ireland to manage any part of the public debt after it shall be consolidated with the debt of Great Britain, an event, which, under the 7th Article of Union betwixt Great Britain and Ireland, may take place within a very few years.—2dly, Because the act ought, for the credit of the bank of Ireland, and the security of the people of that country, to have expressed, in clear and distinct terms, the nature and extent of the privileges it confers.—It is true that it contains a clause limiting the circulation of the bank of Ireland to the sum of 2,750,000 l. similar to the clause of the Irish act of the 37th of the king, ch. 50, which limited the circulation of that bank to 1,500,000 l.—But, as it appears by documents before parliament, that this bank has, notwithstanding the said clause, illegally extended its circulation to a sum Upwards of 3,000,000 l. The act ought distinctly to have expressed what, in conjunction with the Irish acts of the 22d, 31st, end 37th years of his majesty, it
998
clearly enacts, viz.—"That if any sum, exceeding the sum of 2,750,000 l. shall be borrowed, or taken up by, or lent, or advanced to, the Corporation of the bank of Ireland, under their common seal or otherwise, or for payment of which any bond, bill, note, covenant, agreement, or other writing shall be made, sealed, or given, then, and in such case, all and every the person or persons who shall be a member or members of the said corporation, his or their respective heir or heirs, executors, or administrators, shall, in his or their respective private capacities, be chargeable with, or liable in proportion to, their several shares and subscriptions, to the repayment of such monies which shall be so borrowed, taken up, or lent, with interest for the same, in such manner as if such security had been a security for payment of so much money and interest for the same, sealed by such respective members of such corporation, and delivered by him or them, as their respective acts or deeds, in proportion to their several shares and subscriptions, as aforesaid."—3dly, Because we think it our duty to express the strong sense we feel of the great impropriety of extending the Charter of the bank of Ireland, by act of parliament, without, in the same act, doing away that doubt, which, since the passing of an act in the year 1793, was known to exist concerning the admissibility of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, to the direction of that corporation.—We must think that those who pretend to feel such alarm at the idea of granting any extension of privileges to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, were called upon to remove a doubt, on which their minds, if they are serious in their professions, must dwell with such anxiety. Whilst, on the other hand, our anxious desire to see our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects enjoy, in every respect, the privileges to which their birth-right entitles them, makes us deeply regret that this act does not, in explicit terms, declare their eligibility to the situation of governor or director of the bank of Ireland.
LAUDERDALE,
DUNDAS,
(For the last reason) V. HOLLAND."

SUGAR DISTILLATION.
The order of the day being moved for the second reading of the bill prohibiting for a time to be limited the Distillation from corn,
Earl Bathurstrose and observed, that it was not necessary for him to detain their lordships by any minute explanation of

999
the measure now proposed. It was one, which, when fairly considered, would be found highly expedient under all the circumstances of the present moment. The country was now completely excluded from any supplies of corn from the continent of Europe, and from America. A scarcity of provisions had been felt in many parts of the united kingdom; in Scotland, oats were scarce, and had risen in price; in Ireland the potatoe crop had in a great degree failed, which produced a greater consumption of corn, so that prudence dictated a measure which, while it seasonably provided against a scarcity in one quarter, would afford relief in another, where distress had arisen from a superabundance of other articles. There was now a glut in the market, of West India produce, which proved highly injurious to the interests of the West Indian proprietor. This glut would be relieved by encouraging distillation from sugar, without producing any detriment whatever to the interests and improvement of agriculture. He trusted, therefore, the measure would be cheerfully acquiesced in.
The Earl of Selkirkthought the measure pregnant with the most injurious consequences to the agricultural interests of! the country. He admitted that what was used in the distilleries, or in other purposes different from that of immediate sustenance in a year of plenty, might come in aid of the supply in a year of scarcity, and that it might, in consequence of scarcity, become absolutely necessary to stop the distilleries; but, generally speaking, it was much better to leave agriculture and distillation to themselves; if the price of grain became so high in consequence of scarcity that the distillation of it would not yield a profit, the distilleries must of course stop. The high price of grain would also be an encouragement to further cultivation; the produce of which being brought to market would lower the price. The high price of grain might have the effect of inducing the conversion of a portion of grass land into tillage, which would immediately tend to lower the price of grain; and if only a thirtieth part of the grass land in the united kingdom was converted into tillage, he believed there would be no necessity for the importation of grain. He objected to the bill, as tending to lessen the cultivation of grain, and to render the operations of agriculture unsteady and fluctuating. The distilleries, besides, had already stopped,
1000
and no more grain of the produce of the last harvest would be distilled; the deficiency therefore in the last harvest could be no ground for the bill; it must apply to the ensuing harvest, and of that there was at present the fairest prospect; Conceiving the bill to be an unnecessary interference with the agriculture of the country, he must oppose it.
Lord Hollandhad heard nothing to induce him to withdraw that support which he intended to give to the present bill. He could see no reason why, it the quantity of grain consumed in a year of plenty, for purposes different from necessary sustenance, was to come in aid of a year of scarcity, it might not also come in aid of a deficiency of importation. The great object in this case was the relief of the West India interest, now in a state of great distress, and to prevent that ruin in which they must be involved if something was not done to take off a part of that pressure which weighed so heavily upon them. If this could be done, as he contended it could, not only without injuring the interests of agriculture, but with ultimate benefit to those interests, as the West India Islands must, in the present state of affairs, be in a great measure dependant upon this country for provisions; and if some relief was afforded in the present instance, those connected with them would be the better enabled to purchase supplies, he saw no reason why the present measure should not be carried into effect, merely because it was contrary to a general principle.
Viscount Sidmouththought it impolitic to interfere with the agriculture of the country. Let every thing be left to price, and that would be found a much better regulator of the amount of the supply in the market, than any legislative measure. He could not agree with the policy of sacrificing one interest for the benefit of another; it was much better, in his opinion, that competition should be left to its effect. With respect to the West India interest, he thought it would be much better to resort to other measures of a more permanent nature for their relief.
The Earl of Albemarlehad not heard any necessity shewn for the present measure; nor could he agree, that the West India interest ought to be relieved at the expence of the agricultural interests of the country. With respect to importation of grain, he was of opinion, that the land now in cultivation would, if properly managed,

1001
produce a sufficient supply without the necessity of importation.
Lord De Dunstanvilledid not think the agricultural interests of the country would be injured by the present measure, and he could not help thinking it hard upon the West India interest, if, whilst compelled to bring their sugar to this country, they should be precluded from the means, which would be afforded by this measure, of disposing of a part of that produce.
The Duke of Montroseurged the deficiency in the supply of oats and barley in Scotland, as a strong ground for the present measure.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended that the Report of the committee of the house of commons on this subject, did not clearly state the grounds on which the present measure was founded. He condemned the principle of sacrificing the interests of the grower of barley to the grower of sugar, observing that the same principle might be extended in a most injurious manner to different trades and manufactures, and contended, that the throwing back upon the market the quantity of barley which would otherwise be consumed in the distilleries, would necessarily cause a great diminution of price, and greatly injure the agricultural interests of the country.
Lord Hawkesburycontended that the agricultural interests of the country, who were already protected by law in the price fixed, until which, no importation of grain could take place, had no right to complain of the relief now wished to be afforded to another great interest of the country. No one could be more convinced than himself of the importance of supporting the agriculture of the country; he had always considered the agriculture and the navigation of the country, as the two great leading interests on which the prosperity of the country rested. In this case, however, the interests of the whole community required that means should be adopted to prevent the evil consequences of a deficiency of grain arising from there being no importation, and though at present there was every prospect of an abundant harvest, still it should be recollected that the critical period with respect to the future hopes of that harvest had not yet passed. It was in this point of view, added to the actual deficiency which existed in Scotland and Ireland, that he supported the present measure.—The Bill was then read a second time.