Sitting of 25 March 1811

LONDON THEATRE BILL.
Mr. Mellishmoved the second reading of the Bill for the erecting and maintaining a new Theatre for dramatic entertainments with in the cities of London and Westminster. On the Speaker inquiring if counsel were in attendance,
Mr. Sheridanrose and slated, that he had no intention of calling in the assistance of counsel, as he believed a very brief statement of the circumstances of the case would be sufficient to enable the House to form a judgment upon the question before them. He had expected that the hon. gentleman, the worthy representative of Middlesex, to whom it was his duty to express his sense of the politeness and attention which he had received at his hands on this occasion, would have prefaced the motion for the second reading of this Bill, by some statement of the grounds on which it was recommended to parliament, and the principles on which it laid claim to the sanction of the legislature. The only account, however, which he had been able to obtain explanatory of the objects of the measure, was a print-ed paper which had been pretty widely circulated, and which certainly contained nothing in the shape of argument to support it. This paper represented to the public, or to these whom it addressed, that they ought not to be discouraged by the splendid talents that would be exerted against their cause. He disclaimed for his own part any knowledge that such exertions were intended to be made, conscious as he was that the only motive that impelled him to come forward on this occasion, was a feeling of what was due to the number of persons interested in the property of Drury-lane Theatre. He was most ready to acknowledge the candour and fairness

497
that bad been shewn him by the gentlemen with whom the present motion originated, and was clearly of opinion that they had been influenced by the erroneous opinion that the Drury Lane Theatre, would not be rebuilt. When he assured them that this was a mistaken notion, and that there was the strongest probability of its speedy re-establishment, he was disposed to think it would be deemed advisable to withdraw this Bill. He must at the same time contradict a rumour which had gone abroad, describing his industry in canvassing votes for the question; he had, indeed, made no efforts for any such purpose, determined to leave the case to abide by its own merits. Last year the proposers of the new establishment applied to the privy council, and applied in vain; subsequently to which application, a Bill passed through Parliament for incorporating the proprietors of the late Drury Lane Theatre. Why had they not opposed this Bill, presuming as he did, that they intended to introduce the present measure? After this Bill, however, had passed, it was intimated to him that the late Lord Chamberlain, lord Dartmouth, of whom he always wished to speak with respect, notwithstanding his conduct in this business, intended to question the legality of the dormant patent. On the 28th of June, 1810, he received a letter from his Lordship expressive of his resolution to oppose the erection of any theatre in the city of Westminster. Under these circumstances it was impossible that the Drury Lane Proprietors could proceed. A negociation followed upon the subject with lord Dartmouth, the result of which was, a final settlement, that the dormant patent should not be acted on, and that the running patent should continue in force 21 years. These were the sole and uncontroulable causes of the delay in rebuilding Drury Lane Theatre. He had observed, that with respect to the present application, there had been some popular arguments used in the Petition, which were omitted entirely in the Bill. It was represented in the former, that the New Theatre would be established on the principle of opening at the old prices, and of furnishing correct, moral, and rational entertainments. These objects, however, formed no part of the Bill. He was aware, that he should be charged with defending a monopoly, and he was perfectly sensible of the just odium in which monopoly was generally held. But
498
on a sweeping principle of this nature, the monopoly of the East-India Company, lord Gwydir's mooring-chain monopoly, &c. should be all abolished. So far as his own individual interest was concerned, he would willingly surrender, it to the public; but what he must contend for was, that it was contrary to the whole spirit of legislation to interfere with any charter or patent, without providing adequate compensation. He must say, that the present Bill took a most colossal stride; and while it placed one foot upon the chartered rights of the city of London, boldly trod with the other on the ancient prerogatives of the crown. The Bill as it was now framed gave the right of building the new Theatre either on the scite of the Mansion-house, or Guildhall, or the Royal Exchange; but he believed the people in the city were prepared to resist so dangerous an innovation. He would not detain the House further than to say, that it was evident that the present application would never have been made, but for the discovery in another place that the royal prerogative was opposed to it.
Mr. Browne, after expressing the high opinion which he had ever entertained of the genius and talents of the right hon. gent, who had just sat down, observed, that there were two grounds on which the motion submitted to the House might be supported. The first was the great recent increase of the population of the metropolis, and the second, the great and notorious embarrassments in which the property of the Drury-lane proprietors was involved. He believed the neglect of rebuilding that Theatre arose solely from inability. Convinced, however, as he was, that it would never again hold up its head, yet, if there was every reason to believe the contrary, the argument for a new Theatre would be equally strong. As to what had been said of the prerogative of the crown, it could not be contended that it was not necessary for the subject matter of prerogative to be as ancient as the prerogative itself. The number of play-houses was originally limited by Act of Parliament, to prevent the licentiousness which their number was supposed to encourage. If the evidence should now be the other way, an Act of Parliament must be the proper mode of establishing a different regulation. At the period of the Usurpation, all stage-plays were prohibited; at the Restoration they were opened again; and, as appeared from Mr. Hume's History, much licen-

499
tiousness followed. In order to restrain this licentiousness in some measure, two exclusive patents were granted—one of them to sir William Davenant; but the Grown could not be said to mean by that act to part with its discretion; the spirit of the declaration was barely, that there should be but two Theatres at that particular time. In a short time after, a patent was granted to one Betterton, and this was followed, in some time, by the patent to Collier; after which, in the reign of George I, another patent was granted to Rich. The right hon. gent, in the concluding part of his speech had attempted to throw some obloquy on the measure, because it had been rejected before; but when the right hon. gent, stated that it was rejected by the privy council, he should have stated the ground upon which they did so. They did not say that another Theatre was not necessary, but merely that the mode in which it was proposed to carry it into effect, by incorporation, was an objectionable mode, as, in the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, it would have given privileges to the New Theatre which would operate to the disadvantage of the old ones. It was probable that Drury-lane Theatre would never raise its head again; but if a positive pledge could be given that it would, he believed that he could undertake to say the Bill would be withdrawn.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that when anybody set up a claim to a legal monopoly, the best that could be done was to examine that claim. He had a great friendship for the right hon. gent. and for many connected with him, and he had great pity for those who had suffered by the destruction of Drury-lane Theatre; but even, if he had no regard for his right hon. friend, the dignified manner in which he conducted himself on the night of that, calamity would have made him anxious that his loss should not be aggravated. The delay that had taken place in the rebuilding of that theatre, was caused in the manner already described, and he was happy to be able to state to the hon. gent. near hint, that being one of those who were occupied in examining the property, he had reason to know that Drury-lane theatre was likely to be restored. This investigation was not yet sufficiently advanced to enable him to state the time, but he would propose that the second reading should be put off to this day six weeks; and if it was then made manifest
500
that it could be re-established, they might next session consider the question of prerogative, and the question whether the town was actually in want of a third theatre. With respect to the monopoly, he understood that a valuable consideration had been given in money for the patent of Drury-lane. The Hon. gent. had put the question on a fair footing, and, he believed, would not think it unfair in him to move as an amendment, that the word "now" be left out, for the purpose of introducing "this day six weeks."
Mr. Mellishsaid he should be sorry to oppose such a proposition, but he had not now the power to consult those persons at whose request he had brought in the Bill.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that if there should be no other opportunity of bringing it in this session, he would be right in not yielding to the amendment; but as that was not the case, he saw no ground for opposing it.
Mr. Mellishsaid, that as the sense of the House appeared to be against him, he would not so far injure the cause of those for whom he acted, as to call for a division.
The Amendment was accordingly carried.

ELECTION BRIBERY BILL.
Mr. C. W. Wynnin rising to move for the second reading of the Election Bribery Bill, deprecated the idea that this was a subject too delicate to be touched. He referred to the act lately passed, the provisions of which were not adequate to the purpose for which it was intended, as it was a notorious fact that seats in that House had been sold since. The only change it effected was that of sending the purchaser to the principal, and taking the traffic out of the hands of subordinate agents. The penalties attached to selling seats were now sufficient, but the difficulty of detecting them was still great; to remedy which he would propose, that those persons who had been bribed, and who came forward as evidence against the briber, should be indemnified against all consequences. He had seen members of that House give evidence against those they bribed. Another principle which he thought it would be right to adopt was, that of enabling a committee of that House to compel an answer to its questions, even from persons who were themselves concerned. The third provision

501
was, that the petitioners might be examined; for as the law now stood, a man had only to sign his name to the Petition, and he could not be prosecuted. He would also propose that the petitioners should give security, not only for the due prosecution of the Petition, but for the defraying of the expence. And, lastly, he would recommend that the right of petition should be thrown open to every one. There were instances in which those who had signed petitions to that House did not pay the expences, and to remedy this and the presenting of frivolous and vexatious petitions, it was his intention to provide in another Bill, that they should enter into a bond for 500 l. each. If the House was of opinion, that bribery should be kept out of sight, he was sorry they had agreed to the act, which was passed two years ago; for that was a pledge to the country, that they would investigate and prevent it. They knew, however, what had happened since, and the conclusions that were drawn from the exposure of a traffic from which, as it had been strongly and wisely said, our ancestors would have "startled with indignation."* He had been asked in private, whether he really wished to put an end to the sale of seats in Parliament? he bad no hesitation to state, that he certainly did; and he thought it wiser to adopt measures which would prevent the recurrence of such acts, than selecting instances for prosecution, which were the more excusable, as the practice was general. He thought the best course for Parliament would be, disclaiming all wild theories, to set about the correction of the abuse; but if they refused to look into it, the number of the discontented, he feared, would be greatly increased.
Mr. Brandsaid that nothing but a plan founded on a comprehensive view of the subject could possibly do any good. He had no hopes from such partial measures as the present. The effect of them would be nothing else than to throw the monopoly of the purchase of seats into the hands of the Treasury. He was convinced his hon. friend would some time feel the difficulty of doing any good by applying partial remedies to a general evil. To the constitution alone they must look in devising a general remedy com-
* See the. Speech of the right hon. the Speaker, on Mr. Curwen's Reform Bill, vol. 14, p. 837.
502
mensurate with the evil. Into this, how ever, he would not enter at present, as after the Easter recess he intended to propose a general measure. The present measure would only be dangerous and mischievous. His hon. friend himself might be accused of bribery, and the wit ness being the only evidence, could not be convicted of perjury. The prevention of the practice of concealing bribery in the voter, by causing him to petition, was good as far as it went; but it was a very partial benefit. This much he had said on this Bill, because He was anxious that his constituents should be aware that the subject had not escaped his attention. But no great good was reasonably to be expected, except from a real, true, and moderate reform—and for this he was anxious. He wished his hon. friend not to press this to a division, as he must be aware that the Bill had a bearing which perhaps he himself had not observed when he brought it in.
Mr. Johnstoneopposed the Bill, upon the ground that no general or special reasons had been stated to shew the propriety of any legislative measure on the subject. No evidence was produced to prove that seats had been sold since the late act. For many years past the practice had been gradually decreasing; and there was more purity now in election cases, than in the boasted times of our ancestors. He could tell of some of their practices calculated to make their posterity blush for them, whether the conduct of their posterity would have made them start back with horror or not. In the case of Ashburton, in 1707, a motion was made in the House that the right of election was in the holders of land and tenements of the said borough only. An amendment was moved that the word "only" be left out. A ballot was called for—the clerks, with two of the members, went round with a box, into which the rest of the members put their balls. There had been a gradual improvement since. In 1807 no bribery had been proved before any of the committees; and treating was almost at an end.—He said that no cases could be produced to shew the necessity of the repeal of the bribery act, and, before the House could proceed to repeal it, it was necessary to state such necessity.—With regard to the clause respecting evidence, and which did not allow a witness to protect himself upon self-crimination, he was astonished that the hon. gent. who was bred up to the law

503
of the land, could ever think of introducing such a clause. Had it been proposed by those speculative persons, who, in a comparison between the laws of England and the Code Napoleon, were of opinion that, in matters of evidence, it is impossible to say which abounds with the greatest evils, he should not have been so much astonished. Why was this fundamental alteration to be introduced into the law? He would ask how it happened that the law in this country was held in greater veneration than the law in any other country? And why was every body in this country anxious to bring criminals to justice? It was because the law never placed criminals or witnesses in a situation to criminate themselves, or directed the sympathies of mankind against the court. This Bill no doubt exempted the witnesses from punishment; but it could not exempt them from any disgrace. But why was this alteration in the law confined to minor offences? Why was it not to extend to greater offences? Why not to treason itself? Surely the sacred life of the sovereign and the order of society were objects of equal importance.—With respect to petitioning, the expence was such, that it could not be expected that any man from a sense of justice merely, would bring a petition into that House; and it could only be some speculative reformer, anxious to cast an odium on the higher classes, by holding them' out as borough-mongers, who would think of laying out 1,000 l. on such an object. On the whole, he thought the law sufficient, without the present Bill; and if they had any suspicion of the insufficiency of the bribery acts, they ought to wait till a general election, when they would have a trial.
Mr. Curwenthought that there were sufficient grounds for allowing the present Bill to go into a committee. The declaration of the Bribery Bill established the existence of that, which its enactments were found insufficient to remedy. He gave that Bill his support, differing from every one of his friends in his opinion of it, notwithstanding it was so mutilated and changed in its passage through the House by persons whom he never should have expected to see in the light of reformers, that he was convinced of its inefficacy, from an idea that some of the objections against it, ought to have been pointed out by some of his friends.—The hon. gent. who opposed the Bill, said that he could not see the necessity of it, as from our advancement in
504
purity, there was now a great diminution of cases of bribery. When he heard this declaration, he could not but call to mind the speech which they had heard delivered with so much eloquence from the Chair, which deservedly endeared him to the nation and would endear him to posterity. It was notorious that the House of Commons was not possessed of that power and that influence which a House of Commons ought to have, but was stained with spots, which those who were best attached to it, could wish washed away. He confessed he was anxious for a considerable reform in the House. Let the House look to the present moment, and the present situation of the country, and then say if the greatest victory which could be obtained would not be a restoration of the purity of that House. It was well known that the Bribery Act was turned from the purposes for which it was intended. The hon. gent. asked for cases. There were cases with which the hon. gent. could not be acquainted; but if a single case could be adduced, was it not necessary to prevent the possibility of recurrence? It became necessary, therefore, to send the Bill to a committee, where the subject could undergo a complete discussion.—The hon. gent. asked if they would permit a man to come before the House who had no interest in the question? Gracious God! was there a man in the country who was not interested in every thing that concerned the purity of the House! He asked why the mode of evidence on the Bill was not extended to treason? The principle of the law of treason was deservedly the subject of admiration. It considered that he who was the presumed enemy of every man, should therefore be entitled to peculiar protection. But here the object was not punishment, but the preservation of the purity of the House, by preventing a man from sitting in it, who shall have committed au act of bribery, an object of much greater importance than the conviction of the offender, and perfectly distinct from it.—Those who were afraid of the advocates of reform out of doors would do well to consider, that the most effectual way to prevent converts to that doctrine elsewhere, was to do every thing themselves that was temperate and just; and if they were to put art extinguisher upon reform by strangling the present Bill, they would take the most effectual means of giving currency to the doctrines they dreaded. Let the Bill go through every stage, and let it be discussed

505
with all the patience and all the attention of which the House was capable, and if they should so incline, let it at last be rejected. If it should now be strangled, and not allowed to go into a committee, what would be thought in the country? Not surely what the hon. gent. professed, that there was no corruption to reform, but that there was too much corruption to allow reform. The only way to obviate the dangerous tendency of the opinions which they dreaded, was to go themselves into every moderate plan of reform which was practicable. It was impossible to take a more unwise step at present, when all the attachment and all the exertions of the country were required, than to strangle the present Bill. Every man could wish the declaration which was made in that House blotted out from his remembrance; and as he wished to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of the evil, he earnestly requested the concurrence of the House in allowing the present Bill to go into a committee.
Sir John Anstruthersaid, that he should oppose every alteration of the present constitution of that House, and had he merely heard the speech of the hon. gent. who spoke last, he should have concluded that such was the object of the present Bill. Notwithstanding all the lofty language which they had heard from that hon. gent., almost threatening them with the distrust and condemnation of the people if they did not accede to this measure, he would tell that hon. gent. that a Bill ought to be canvassed in that House on is just principles, and when those principles did not meet with their approbation, they did their duty in rejecting it; and in endeavouring to please the people in opposition to their own sentiments, they would not do their duty, but commit an act of injustice.—He then proceeded to discuss the clause relating to evidence, which went to violate a principle acknowledged in the laws of this and every other country. It was said that the witness was indemnified from punishment. But was it possible to indemnify him from the effect of moral guilt, from the loss of character sustained by the compulsive discovery. Another strong objection to this part of the Bill was, that it increased the temptation to perjury for the purpose of conviction or acquittal. An informer came into court with all the blackness peculiar to an informer, and his credibility was affected by it. But here he was relieved
506
from all that odium. Why not introduce this principle to other crimes? He had therefore, great objections to the introduction of a principle of which he could not see the termination.—To the other clauses he had also great objections. From giving a general right to petition, little good could ensue, and a door could be opened to a great deal of mischief. He should therefore oppose the Bill going into a Committee.
Sir John Newportthought it very natural that those who opposed every plan of reform which could have any practical effect, on some pretext or other, should also oppose the present Bill. All the reasons, however, which he had heard against committing the Bill, were, in his mind, so many reasons in favour of the measure. If the Bill was liable to the objections which had been specified, the way to purge it from those objections was to go into a Committee. What would be the conseqnence of a refusal? It would convince the people of England, that the former measures of the House were merely resorted to for the sake of tranquillizing the public mind for a moment, and not from any serious desire of reformation. The hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Johnstone,) had asked for a case. Why, the very evil was the secret nature of the act, from which, by the existing law, it would be impossible ever to make a discovery of it. If the offence could be discovered, the present law was sufficient to convict the offender, and there would then be no necessity of coming to the House for an alteration. He concluded with declaring, that he should vote for the Committee.
Mr. Morristhought it impossible to look at the subject, without seeing that there was great room far improvement in the election law. It was not sufficient for the House, however, lo be convinced that there was this, that, and the other thing, to censure. They were to look at the question narrowly, and to see that in their desire for improvement they did not introduce an abuse rather than a remedy. He particularly objected to the clause, by which a person was compelled to make a disclosure of an offence in which he himself was implicated. This was lo oblige a jury to give credit to a person so circumstanced, whether he might be swearing true or false; and, at the same time, to leave the party against whom he complained completely at his mercy. He had only to name a time and place when no person

507
else could be present, and in this way, must be certain of acquitting or convicting as he pleased, and at the same time of himself escaping detection. The remedying the abuses in elections, was a consummation devoutly to be wished; but, not at the expence of such a Bill as the present.
Mr. C. W. Wynn shortly replied, when the House divided, Ayes 17. Noes 64. Majority against the Bill 47.

List to the Minority.

Adam, W.

Hussey, W.

Adair, R.

Langton, G.

Aubin, Sir J. St.

Moore, P.

Abercrombie, J.

Newport, Sir J.

Burdett, Sir F.

Ponsonby, G.

Babington, T.

Thornton, H.

Curwen, J. C.

Tracey, H.

Grattan, H.

Wilberforce, W.

Hibbert, G.

Wynn, C. W.

Hutchinson, C. H.

IRISH MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.
In the Committee of Supply, Mr. Foster moved, That a sum of 25,000 l. Irish Currency be granted for defraying the expence of Criminal Prosecutions and Law Expences for one year,
Sir J. Newportwished to know why the accounts relative to this grant, had not been accurately stated as usual?
Mr. Fosterreplied, that the Estimate was before the House.
Mr. W. Polewas happy to inform the right hon. baronet, that the grant of the preceding year had been 25,000 l. of which sum 2,875 l. remained on hand as the surplus. The right hon. baronet knew very well what the grant was composed of, and he also knew very well that the expences this year for special commissions, &c. were great. It had, therefore, notwithstanding the surplus remaining, been deemed expedient to take the same sum for the present year.
Sir J. Newportexpressed himself dissatisfied with the statement of the hon. gentleman. He declared that he was not to be put down in the discharge of his public duty by the tone and manner of the hon. gent. which did not result altogether from his official situation, but was in some degree a family inheritance.—(Order, order.)
Mr. W. Polethought it was hard that the hon. baronet should accuse him of arrogance after the attempt which he had made to satisfy his inquiries. He trusted, however, that the Committee would be
508
convinced that he had fully explained the subject.
The Resolution was agreed to. The next sum proposed was the annual grant for Civil Buildings in Ireland.
Mr. W. Polesaid, that the sum usually voted under the head of Civil Buildings was 25,000 l. and the general opinion was, that this sum was expended on a few public buildings, and upon the houses of the lord lieutenant and the chief secretary. The sum expended however amounted very often to double the sum granted. In order to correct this evil, he thought it necessary that the estimates should be framed in a different manner, and he had given directions that they should state distinctly the different services for which the money was required. The papers therefore now before the House, contained a detailed estimate of the probable expenditure of the Board of Works for the year 1811, distinguishing each building in which works were to be performed, viz. the castle, the law courts, public offices, and other public buildings, also the houses of the lord lieutenant and chief secretary, and the improvements in the park. When the Committee heard the various heads of service which he had read, they would not, he was sure, be surprised that the sum of 25,000 l. Was not sufficient to cover the expenditure, which in fact generally amounted to near 50,000 l. Having called upon the Board of Works, as he had before stated, for the most minute and detailed estimate that could be made of the different services for which money was required, these estimates had been submitted to the heads of the different departments in which the work was to be performed, and their opinion taken before the work was ordered. By the adoption of this plan, though the sum which it was proposed to vote was larger than usual, yet the actual expence was reduced from 50,000 l. to about 32,000 l. This was the best plan that suggested itself to his mind for commencing a reform, and he begged to add, that no step had been taken without the authority of the lord lieutenant.—Having stated thus much, he begged to say a few words upon a passage in the 7th Report of the Committee upon Public Expenditure, of which an hon. friend of his, opposite to him, was chairman (Mr. Bankes.) The Committee had issued two precepts to the Board of Works in Ireland, one on the 23d February, the other on the 23d March. The first calling for" An Account of the

509
application of 25,000 l. voted in the last session, for defraying the expences of Civil Buildings, from the 5th January 1809, to 5th January 1810, together with the names of all persons receiving salaries or allowances out of the same; and a statement how much the said sum was deficient to defray the whole expence incurred; specifying also, by whom the bills relating to that sum have been or are to be examined and audited. "The second for" An abstract Account of the several particulars of expenditure by the commissioners of the Board of Works, of the sum of 25,000 l. granted by parliament, for defraying the expence of civil buildings in Ireland, from 5th January 1809, to 5th January 1810, specifying the several public buildings, to the erection or repair of which the said grant was applied." In the return made to the first of these precepts, the Board of Works gave a detailed account of the whole expenditure, amounting to 50,014 l. 1s. 6d.; and in the one founded on the second, they gave an exact account of the expenditure of the 25,000 l. conformably to the desire of the Committee: and indeed so minutely was it stated, that it appeared there was a balance in the Bank in favour of the public of 16 s. 6½d. It appeared to him, that when a board or an individual was called upon for a return of this kind, that nothing could be more satisfactory than that the return should be precisely what it was required to be. To this principle the Board of Works had in these instances most honestly and conscientiously adhered. He now begged to read that part of the report to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. He was the more anxious to notice this subject, because the persons who composed the Board of Works in Ireland were men of the most respectable character, who had always discharged their public duty in the most exemplary manner; and it was natural therefore that they should feel deeply hurt when any censure was passed upon their conduct, especially from so respectable a quarter.—Mr. Pole then read the following observations of the Committee:—" Your Committee desire to call the attention of the House to the following paper, containing nominally an account of the expenditure of the same vote for the same, as a curious specimen of official dexterity in manufacturing a statement, by means of which a true return may be rendered as to figures, while the result must lead to a false conclusion. It
510
is undeniable that out of any given sum, no more than the amount of that sum itself can be expended; but it is equally true that a detail made out with the greatest apparent accuracy, exhibiting a part only of the sums actually paid for several heads of service, and suppressing the total charge, without any notice or indication that any further expence was incurred, could not induce the least suspicion that when the Board of Works professed, out of the vote of 25,000 l. to have a balance of 16 s. 6½d. in hand, they had in fact run in debt to the amount of 25,014 l. "He wished to ask the Committee, whether the returns made by the Board of Works deserved this censure? they had stated that the whole expenditure amounted to 50,000 l. and afterwards they gave a detailed account of the manner in which the 25,000 l. had been expended. They had in fact, done that which they were required by the precept to do, and therefore he could not but think that the observation made upon them in the report contained an unfounded aspersion upon their character. The Board of Works had made a complaint to him upon this subject, and stated, that they had made another return to the Committee respecting the sum of 14,000 l. expended over and above the 25,000 l. of which no notice whatever was taken in the report. He would not trouble the Committee any longer, but he hoped it would appear from what he had stated, that the Irish government was anxious to reduce the public expence as much as possible, and that they were not disposed to adhere to old forms when upon examination they appeared to be improper.
Mr. Bankessaid that as the two returns had been received together, he supposed he had taken up one of their first, which led to the censure which appeared in the report of which he avowed himself to be the author. At the same time he wished to state, that he was not disposed to retract what he had said, because he was of opinion that the returns were made in such a way as if they wished to keep back a part of the truth.
Mr. Polesaid, his hon. friend was not aware of the manner in which the Board of Works drew for the money which was necessary for the services which they were required to perform. In the first instance they drew until the 25,000 l. the amount of the usual grant, was exhausted, and then they were under the necessity of drawing upon other funds, to cover the whole of

511
their expenditure.—They were required by the precept of the Committee to give an account of the expenditure of the 25,000 l. which they had done, and they had also given the details of the whole of the expenditure of the year, what could they do more? In fact they had endeavoured to give every information in their power, and he was sure the Committee would, when they looked at the returns, be of opinion, that they had in every respect, and in the fullest and most satisfactory manner, complied with the precepts which had been sent to them.
Sir John Newportwas of opinion, that the returns might have been worded in a more satisfactory manner, and therefore he could not but think that the censure which appeared in the report was well founded.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it appeared to him that the statement made by his right hon. friend was most satisfactory. The returns made by the Board of Works appeared to have been made with an anxious desire to give every possible information to the Committee. If their object had been, as it was insinuated, to conceal the details of the expenditure, they certainly had taken the most extra-ordinary means of doing it, for they had accounted for every sixpence that had been laid out. He was quite sure that a return from any other part of the United Kingdom would not be described as a specimen of a dexterous attempt at concealment, merely because it contained all the information that had been required, and that could possibly be given.
Mr. H. Thorntonsaid, that being a member of the Committee, he felt anxious to state his sentiments on this occasion. He had looked over the returns attentively, and it appeared to him that there was no foundation for any censure upon the Board of Works. The returns might perhaps have been framed in a different manner, but there was obviously a desire to give all the information required.
Mr. Polesaid, he hoped the Committee would excuse him for rising again, but he really felt it to be his duty to vindicate the character of the gentlemen who composed this Board, which in his opinion had been most unjustly attacked. He merely wished the Committee to bear in mind that they had made two returns to the precepts; the first contained a detailed account of the whole expenditure of the year, the second an account of the expen-
512
diture of the 25,000 l. These two returns had been sent to him from Ireland together, and they had been transmitted front his office to the Committee of Public Expenditure at the same time. There was only one more remark which he thought it necessary to make, and that was, on the manner in which the two accounts were inserted in the report, which tended in some degree to overturn the defence set up by his hon. friend. The return to the precept of the 23d of February stood (as it ought to do) first; then followed the censure upon the Board of Works, of which he had complained; and lastly came the return to the precept of the 23d of March, without any observation whatever. This shewed they were properly classed, but had not been sufficiently digested, otherwise that censure would never have appeared in the shape it did.
The resolution was then agreed to.
Mr. Fosternext moved the resolution for Maynooth College, granting a sum not exceeding 8,973 l. to that seminary for the year ending 5th January 1812. On the question being put,
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid he could not help expressing his astonishment to hear, after a series of grants, each of which had been more or less encreased, the estimate for Maynooth College, even less than the ordinary one. He knew, and the minister for Ireland he believed knew also, that that estimate in every respect fell short of the necessities of the institution: instead of lessening what was already too small, it would have better become that government which had begun by diminishing the original grant of 13,000 l. a year, to have suggested such an encrease as might have been of some use to an, establishment they had so much injured. He did not wish to repeat those arguments which had been so often and ineffectually urged against the infatuated prejudices with which the present ministers looked to every Irish question; but he would cite to them from their own estimates, one or two facts which he must leave to them to account for: of the sixteen principals presiding in that seminary over 260 students, the full salary amounted to 25 l. a year each. Thus, the men who were entrusted with the education of those who were destined to preside over the morals of the Irish people, were severally allowed 16 d. a day for their support and this too, while in another estimate which they had just voted, it appeared, that the mere day-

513
labourers in the Dublin society house, had an allowance of 12 s. a-week each, while those who were to rear the future pastors of the people, were to starve on 9s. 4d. a-week This was in itself so bad, so mean, so pitiful, so indecent, that no mode of Stating it could make it worse than it was. If ministers wished to put down the institution, why not come to parliament and say so openly, and not make a parliamentary grant at once the pretence and the means both of insult and of injury. They had just voted 10,000 l. for printing Irish proclamations. He called upon the minister to get up in his place, and say, why the principle, which was allowed to have an operation in raising all the other grants (the rise in the price of provisions), should not be allowed to have its effect in the increase of this estimate.
Sir J. Newportthought the sum proposed not sufficient, and that the grant ought not to be less by 350 l. than on former years. He would certainly move, that the sum of 9,250 l. should be granted.
Mr. Herbertthought a larger sum ought to be granted, and would move, that the sum of 13,000 l. should be the grant, if any person would second the motion.
Mr. Grattanwas of opinion it would have been better had such a grant been voted in 1806.
A conversation followed, in which Mr. Hutchinson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. May, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Abercromby, Mr. W. Wynn and Mr. Foster participated. In this, the manner in which the sums granted were applied was discussed. The necessity of a larger grant was strongly contended for on the one side, and strenuously resisted on the other. It was proposed to postpone the grant, but this being objected to, sir J. Newport moved, that the chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The gallery was then cleared for a division. But the proposition was negatived, and the grant originally moved agreed to by the Committee.
Mr. Hutchinson, before the House resumed, wished to ask a question of the right hon. gent. opposite. It had been strongly rumoured, that he (Mr. Foster) was about to quit his high official situation. He wished to know, if it was in the contemplation of government, in the event of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland becoming vacant, to abolish that office altogether, or to fill it with another officer?—(Loud cries of Order!)
514
He did not conceive he was out of order. In the present situation of the affairs of Ireland, which approached a state of bankruptcy, he thought every possible saving should be made.
Mr. Fosterthought the hon. gent. was not in order, and therefore he should only answer by saying he hoped the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be brought to trial, or condemned without being allowed a fair hearing.—The House was then resumed.