Sitting of 29 June 1815

PETITION RESPECTING THE MARSHAL OF THE KING'S BENCH.
Mr. Douglaspresented a Petition from several prisoners in the King's-bench, adverting to the Report of the Committee upon the alleged abuses of that prison, and praying for an opportunity of testifying to the humane conduct of the Marshal, upon whose character the said Report appeared to the petitioners to cast some reflections. Upon the motion for laying the Petition upon the table,
Mr. Bennetsaid, that the Report of the
[1040
Committee of the House, appointed to inquire into the state of the King's bench Fleet, and Marshalsea prisons, bad cast no other reflection on Mr. Jones, than what was warranted by the evidence that had been adduced before them. That evidence proved, that he was little acquainted with what occurred in his prison; and he avowed himself, that be seldom or ever entered within its walls. The numerous contradictions given to his evidence by others, who were in the constant habit of seeing and hearing what was really going on, would have left no doubt of that being the case, even if he had not acknowledged it. The committee had therefore stated, that a keeper of a prison, receiving from it a net annual income of 3,590 l., and not daily inspecting and visiting the prison, and not being personally acquainted with all that was transacted therein, seemed to them to prove the existence of a state of things that ought not to be suffered to continue.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he had heard that Mr. Jones was not pleased with the Report of the Committee; but he must say, that it appeared from the evidence of Mr. Jones himself, that he was not sufficiently acquainted with what was passing within the prison. The sole direction and management of the prisoners was entrusted to Mr. Brooschooft, the private clerk, of Mr. Jones; and the committee had thought it their duty to mark their sense of the impropriety of his conduct.
The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

SLAVE TRADE.
Mr. A. Browne, seeing an hon. member in his place who had obtained leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the smuggling of Slaves into our West-India colonies, wished to inquire when that Bill would be laid before the House. If it were only to be read a first time this session, it ought to be brought in without delay, that having been printed, it might during the recess be sent to the colonies.
Mr. Wilberforcewas a sufficiently old member of that House to know that the Bill ought to be brought in before the end of the present session, in order that copies of it might be sent abroad before Parliament assembled again. Since, however, it had only been proposed that it should be read a first time and printed in the present session, as it was a bill of great? detail, he had kept it back to read it carefully over, that it might be as correct as

1041]
possible when it came before the House. He had considered that so it were brought in before the session was at an end, a week could not be of importance. He should have been ready with it sooner, had he thought a few days at all material in the present instance.
Mr. A. Browneexpressed himself content with the statement of the hon. gentleman. Tie was only anxious that the Bill should be brought in, in due time to have it printed before the close of the session.

PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE RESPECTING THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND'S MARRIAGE.
The Report of the Committee upon the Prince Regent's Message with regard to an additional grant to the duke of Cumberland in consequence of his marriage with the princess of Salms was brought up and upon the motion that the Resolution in favour of the grant be read a second time,
Mr. R. Gordonrose, and declared that he could not reconcile it to his sense of duty to allow this motion to pass with a silent vote against it. He was astonished at the observation of the noble lord (Castleregh) who brought forward this motion last night, that he did not apprehend any opposition, while he agreed with the noble lord that it most be painful to hear any reflections upon the character of the individual referred to, or any comments whatever at all likely to depreciate the consequence of the illustrious family to whom that individual belonged. But ministers alone were to blame in dragging the duke of Camberland before that House. If any reflections were thrown out against that individual, it was the fault of ministers in forcing him upon the consideration of that House. After what had notoriously passed with respect to this individual, and his connexion—after the rumours that were afloat upon the subject—he could not by any means concur with the noble lord, that this was not to be regarded as a personal question, and that that House, when called upon to accede to a vote of this nature, had not a right to consider the merits of the individual. On the contrary, he thought it the duty of the House to enter into that consideration, and to inquire whether the duke of Cumberland had, either in his military or senatorial capacity, rendered any services to the country that could entitle him to this additional grant. For it did not follow that
[1042
any branch of the Royal family should on his marriage obtain an augment had of that allowance which Parliament had already voted to each; and as to the addition voted to the duke of York upon his marriage, he thought the arguments offered in answer to those who adduced that vote as a precedent upon the present, occasion, were quite unanswerable. Upon these grounds the hon. member said he should move, byway of amendment, That the Resolution be read a second time this day three months.—[A cry of "Question, question!" on the Ministerial side.]
Mr. Alderman C. Smithsaid, that hail he been present last night, he would have voted for the proposed grant. It was indisputable, in his opinion, that a private individual could not subsist upon less than 300 l. a year, and that, an addition of 100 l. a year would be necessary to such an individual upon his marriage. Now, the proposed addition to the revenue of the duke of Cumberland upon his royal highness's marriage, being necessary and moderate in an equal proportion, the hon. alderman expressed his resolution to support the original motion.—[The cry of "Question" from the Ministerial side was repeated.]
Mr. W. Smithexpressed a disinclination to trespass upon the time of the House, but observed that he could not refrain from decidedly discountenancing this extraordinary proposition. He apprehended that the marriage of the duke of Cumberland was disagreeable to the Royal family and he understood that it was the intention of this prince not to reside in this country; and if such were his intention, that circumstance certainly furnished an additional argument against the propriety of the proposed grant; nay, he understood, that if that person should bring his new connexion to this country, she would not be received at Court; that such was the I resolution of an illustrious personage; and he wished to ask, whether such was not the fact? If this report were unfounded, he should be glad to have it contradicted; for if it were true, he could see no reason for the proposed additional grant. He was therefore anxious to get at the fact upon this point. A great deal had been said upon this occasion as to the propriety of supporting the splendour of the Royal family; but upon this subject he would repeal what he had before often uttered, namely, that the character and consequence of that family in this country de-

1043]
pended more upon their conduct than upon any splendour they exhibited—[Hear, hear!]—Therefore if he were called upon to appreciate the merits of this family, he should be disposed to think highest of him who had set aside 12,000 l. a year of his revenue for the purpose of discharging debts unfortunately contracted in his youth—[The duke of Kent.] Thus this truly respectable prince consented to subsist upon 6,000 l. a year in order to discharge his engagements, and he had no hesitation in saying that such an evidence of integrity was calculated to render this prince infinitely more respectable in England than any degree of splendour his Royal Highness could contrive to maintain.—[Hear, hear!]—But the members of the Royal family had, in fact, no occasion to support any pomp or parade, or to enter into a competition with private individuals with a view to sustain their importance, however becoming it might be for the Sovereign, as the representative of the country at large, to maintain a certain degree of splendour, or however proper it might be to make certain pecuniary allowances to the duke of Wellington and others, raised to the Peerage for their merit, in order to enable them to support the dignity of their station. The members of the Royal family, however, were not to be regarded in the same view—to each of them an allowance was already made by Parliament, and he saw no reason to justify any further addition, especially to the person whose case was under consideration.—[Hear, hear!]—The Marriage Act had, he was aware, subjected the members of the Royal family to certain inconveniencies by obliging them to marry foreigners. The law of the country had, however, imposed this obligation from political motives, and therefore Parliament was bound to consider the case of those individuals; but the marriage which gave rise to the motion before the House was not, in his judgment, entitled to any peculiar consideration—[A cry of "Question, question!" on the Ministerial side.]
Mr. Protheroesaid, that he could not consistently give a silent vote upon this proposition. He was fully aware of the extreme delicacy of the subject. No one was, he believed, more anxious than himself to observe that delicacy, or more ready to accede to any measure necessary to maintain the dignity, honour, and interest of the Crown; but as he did not think
[1044
the proposed grant connected in any degree with the maintenance of that dignity, honour, or interest, he felt it his duty to oppose it. The noble mover had expressed surprise that any opposition should be made to this extraordinary vote; but if the noble lord knew any thing of the feelings and sentiments of the people, he could not be surprised to hear some expression of those feelings and sentiment from their representatives in that House. The popularity of the ministers was no doubt deservedly high; but in his opinion they over-rated that popularity, if they supposed that it could serve to reconcile the people to a vote of this nature, and came to a very erroneous conclusion if they supposed, that because millions were cheerfully voted to maintain the public safety and general interest, this exceptionable motion would be acceded to. He would not enter into any invidious comparison between the merits of the proposed grant and that made to the duke of Wellington; but when it was recollected, that upon the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Liverpool (general Gascoyne), to advance the half-pay of our military officers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the finances of the country could not afford it, and when it was recollected also that no additional reward was voted for the meritorious services of the Commander-in-chief, he could not suppress the declaration of his astonishment at the motion before the House. That motion was indeed such, that were it brought forward at a period when there was a fuller attendance of members, he had no doubt it would have been decidedly rejected. He was astonished, indeed, after what had passed on the former discussion, that the duke of Cumberland could reconcile it to his feelings to accept of the grant—[Hear, hear!] The majority in favour of the measure had been so small, that it must be evident to his Royal Highness, and to the world, that the sense of the House was against him—[Hear, hear! and loud cries of "Question!" from the Ministerial side.]
Mr. Forbesexpressed his readiness to support the views of the last speaker, if he thought proper to propose (and he hoped the hon. member would) some reward for the meritorious services of the Commander-in-chief. [Hear, hear! on the Ministerial side.] But such a proposition could not disincline him to vote for the present motion. As to the merits of

1045]
the illustrious person under consideration, he had lived long enough in the world to withhold his belief of more than one-half of what he heard—nay, he doubted even what he saw. [A laugh.] Therefore he doubted what be had heard with regard to the duke of Cumberland. It was notoriously but too easy to propagate scandal, and when by any means a person happened to get a bad name, credence was just as promptly given to any story to his or her prejudice as it was refused with respect to any one who happened to get a good name. His rote, he declared, he should give entirely on public grounds. In, the first place, the duke of Cumberland was the son of the King, and that he thought would not be questioned. [A laugh.] In the second place, he would ask, whether his Royal Highness had not contracted the marriage alluded to with the consent of the Crown? It was doubted, he was aware, whether this consent had been granted before or after the marriage, but the Prince Regent's Message seemed to settle that point; and his next question would be, whether the provision allowed to his Royal Highness, as a bachelor, could be deemed sufficient to maintain his splendour as a married man? But if that provision were so deemed, he must say that too much had been granted to his Royal Highness as a bachelor. The hon. member concluded with stating, that he differed totally from those who sought to bring disgrace upon the object of this proposition, and to reflect upon the Royal family, whose character ought to be sustained for the general good of the country.
Mr. Tierneyrepeated the question put by his hon. friend (Mr. W. Smith), and to which no answer had been returned, namely, whether Her Majesty was not decidedly hostile to the marriage which gave rise to this discussion, and whether, if the duchess of Cumberland should come to this country, she would not be received at Court—whether this fact did not come within the noble lord's own knowledge?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that he should abstain from answering any questions calculated to vilify the Royal family, and that he did not think the right hon. gentleman had any right to put such questions.
Mr. Tierneyfelt himself perfectly justified in putting the questions, to which the noble lord objected—it was his right to put such questions, and the duty of the noble lord to answer them for the satisfac-
[1046
tion of the House. [Some cry of "Spoke, Spoke!" on the Ministerial side.] But Mr. Tierney proceeded, and repeated his questions, whether Her Majesty had not declared that she would not receive the duke of Cumberland's consort at Court, and whether the noble lord was not fully aware of this declaration? Nay, whether Her Majesty had not decidedly disapproved, for some reason or other, of a proposed marriage between the princess of Salms, and the duke of Cambridge? and whether Her Majesty had not thought that a marriage having been broken off with one brother, the lady alluded to was not fit to be the wife of another? The noble lord professed great anxiety to preserve the reputation of the Royal family, but it behoved that House to take care that it did not fall into that disrepute to which it was but too liable if it acceded to a proposition of this nature. In fact, if the House of Commons were not willing to degrade itself by becoming the mere banker of the Court, it would not agree to a grant of the public money in consequence of this marriage, with regard to which the minister dare not call upon it for a vote of approbation. [Hear, hear!] As to the complaint that this discussion had a tendency to reflect upon the character of the Royal family, he denied the justice of the statement. But if the discussion had really such a tendency, those only were to blame who advised this proposition to be brought forward; for upon such a proposition the House was bound to do its duty, and to investigate the merits of the individual to whom the proposition referred. Upon this point, however, the hon. member who spoke last had stated his disinclination to believe more than one-half what he heard; but surely quite enough would be found to justify the rejection of this motion if only half of what was said of either the lady or gentleman referred to were to be believed. [Hear, hear!] But he dared to say that the noble lord, with a majority of 16 or 17 behind him, would be found to discard those considerations, and so no doubt would the object of this vote also, although, as an hon. member had observed, he could not, after what had taken place, accept such a grant consistently with any idea of dignity: for no consideration of dignity was likely to have much influence in that quarter. With respect to the Marriage Act, he concurred, in some measure, with the observations of his hon. Friend

1047]
(Mr. Smith) What, however, was the object of that Act, but to prevent any member of the Royal family from contracting improper connexions?—and thus came the question, whether the marriage under discussion could be regarded as a proper connexion suitable to the views of the Marriage Act, or whether the object of that Act was not defeated by such a marriage,—whether, in consequence of rumours, insinuations, or something more serious, tier Majesty had determined to refuse her consent to the marriage of this lady with the duke of Cambridge? Those were questions which that House was bound to consider, and which had such an influence upon his mind, that he was resolved to take the sense of the House upon every stage of this measure, in the hope that the House of Commons would be found to do its duty by rejecting the proposition.
Lord Nugentsaid, that before the House divided he could not but remind gentlemen of the circumstances under which they were coming to the vote. A question had been put to ministers by his hon. friend (Mr. W. Smith), and repeated by his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), to which ministers had not dared to give a reply. No one of His Majesty's ministers had been found to venture to give the House even a hope that one of the illustrious persons, immediately the object of this grant, would, in the case of her coming to reside in England, be admitted to the Court of this country. [Hear!] For his own part, he disapproved of the grant proposed, with reference to the time in which, to the manner in which, and to the person for whom, the grant was proposed. He differed with his hon. friend who stated that he did not admit public rumour to influence his vote. For his own part he voted mainly on evidence which could come before the House only by public rumour—public rumour uncontradicted and unencountered. [Hear, hear!] His right hon. friend had pledged himself to take the sense of the House in every stage of this grant. In the conscientious discharge of his duty, he could not but say, that in every stage of the grant his vote should second that of his right hon. friend.
Mr. Bennetrose to inquire of the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Forbes), whether he meant to apply personally to him the remark, that he (Mr. Bennet) had brought disgrace upon himself by those comments
[1048
which he had felt it his duty to make, on a preceding evening, respecting the character of the duke of Cumberland?
Mr. Forbessaid, he was not aware he had said any thing personally disrespectful to the hon. member; but if he had, he certainly did not intend to do so. At the same time he would leave it to the judgment of the House, whether the expressions which the hon. gentleman had used were either proper or parliamentary.
The House then divided, when the numbers were,

For the Amendment

62

For the original Motion

74

Majority in favour of the grant

—

12

On the question, that a Bill should be brought in founded on the Resolution of the Committee, another division took, place.

For the Motion

75

Against it

62

Majority in favour of the grant

—

13

List of the Majority.

Addington, rt. hon. H.

Mahon, hon. S.

Bloomfield, B.

Mellish, W.

Beresford, lord G.

Murray, sir J.

Brydges, sir E.

Moorsom, R.

Brogden, J.

Manners, lord C,

Blake, Valentine

Pringle, sir W.

Bradshaw, hon. C.

Phipps, general

Bathurst, hon. W.

Palmer, of Luggershall

Bathurst, rt. hon. B.

Buller, sir E.

Palmerston, visc.

Binning, lord

Pakenham, hon. R.H.

Courtenay, T. P.

Peel, right hon. R.

Congreve, sir W.

Pole, rt. hon. W. W.

Clements, Henry

Rose, right hon. G.

Chichester, Arthur

Smith, C.

Croker, J. W.

Stirling, sir W.

Carew, R. Pole

Shiffner, G.

Castlereagh, visc.

St. Paul, H.

Daly, J.

Shaw, sir J.

Desborough, E.

Sheldon, R.

Doveton, Gabriel

Sutton, rt. hon. C. M.

Dawkins, James

Stuart, hon. A.

Douglas, hon. F. S.

Seymour, lord R.

Forbes, Charles

Thornton, general

Fergusson, James

Thornton, Samuel

Fitzgerald, right hon. W. V.

Thynne, lord J.

Teed, John

Graham, sir J.

Vansittart, rt. hon. N.

Goulburn, H.

Wemyss, general

Grant, Charles

Warrender, sir G.

Garrow, sir W.

Webster, sir G.

Hammersley, H.

Wood, sir M.

Hart, G. V.

Wood, T.

Holford, G. P.

Wellesley, R.

Hill, sir G.

Yorke, sir J.

Long, right hon. C.

Lowther, viscount

TELLERS.

Lowther, hon. H.

Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.

Lygon. hon. W.

Lushington, S.

1049]

List of the Minority.

Abercrombie, hon. J.

Lewis, F.

Bankes, H.

Martin, H.

Barham, J.

Martin, J.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Moore, P.

Barnard, Scrope

Mackintosh, sir J.

Burrell, sir C.

Neville, hon. R.

Burrell, hon. P. R.

North, D.

Burrell, W.

Nugent, lord

Butterworth, Jos.

Ossulston, lord

Barclay, C.

Parnell, sir H.

Babington, T.

Proby, lord

Brand, hon. T.

Protheroe, E.

Calcraft, J.

Pym, F.

Calvert, C.

Robinson, A.

Calvert, N.

Ramsden, J. C.

Campbell, lord J.

Rashleigh, W.

Campbell, D.

Shakespear, A.

Cavendish, lord G.

Smith, R.

Cavendish, H.

Swann, H.

Davenport, D.

Shaw, B.

Dundas, hon. L.

Tremayne, J. H.

Duncannon, visc.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Fawcett, H.

Tighe, W.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Western, C. C.

Findlay, K.

Wilbraham, B.

Grenfell, P.

Wynn, C.

Gascoyne, G. I.

Wynn, sir W.

Gooch, T. S.

Williams, sir R.

Hamilton, lord A.

Wilberforce, W.

Horner, F.

Howorth, H.

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. L.

Gordon, R.

Lemon, sir W.

Smith, W.

ADDRESS FOR A NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND MONUMENTS TO OFFICERS WHO FELL IN THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that be had, on a former occasion, given notice that be should on this day submit a resolution to the House for the purpose of bestowing those marks of national gratitude on the heroes who fell in the late battle, to which their pre-eminent services so justly entitled them; and he did hope, that by delaying to bring forward the motion till now, he should have been able to receive from the distinguished officer who commanded on that memorable day the names of all those who had most signalized themselves. Such, however, had been the course of active operations carried on by the duke of Wellington since that period, that no return, down to the 25th of this month, which was the latest intelligence Government had received from him, had been made out: but they knew enough of all the circumstances of that great contest to enable them to proceed; and he thought no time should be lost in paying that respect and gratitude which they owed to the memory of those who had
[1050
fallen—[Hear, hear!]. When he last had the honour of addressing the House upon that subject, they were in possession of no other account but the modest statement of the illustrious victor, and it was not until the details of the enemy were published that the full extent of that battle, its character of glory for this country, and its disastrous consequences to France, were known—[Hear, hear!]. Great actions had generally produced great results, but he believed it would be impossible to find one in the annals of modern warfare which had been crowned with greater military trophies, or which had been attended with a greater moral success. It had made that nation to whom, for the last five-and-twenty years, all the calamities with which Europe had been afflicted were owing, feel the whole extent of that misery and misfortune which, its own criminal ambition had so often inflicted on other countries; and he trusted it had also produced that deep impression upon the heart of every Frenchman, as it was evident it had upon the apprehensions of what was called the Government of France, that they would feel no time was to be lost in repairing, as far as was in their power, the multiplied injuries they had inflicted on mankind—[Hear, hear!]. With respect to the question more immediately before them, he was sure the House and the country would deeply lament if some appropriate mode were not devised to distinguish those who had fallen, some mark of national gratitude and exultation to commemorate an action, which, whether it was regarded in its moral, in its political, or in its military character, was the greatest action which, the British arms had ever performed—[Hear, hear!]. The House therefore would doubtless be disposed on the present occasion to travel a little out of the usual manner of distinguishing military achievements, as our brave army had certainly travelled out of the ordinary exploits of war; they would feel that it would be useful to the country even, that we should have the proud satisfaction of contemplating a National Monument erected to the memory of the officers and soldiers [loud cries of Hear, hear!] who so gloriously fell on that great occasion. He should certainly regret if, in paying that general tribute of a nation's gratitude, the merits of those officers whose services were entitled to pre-eminent recollection, were not placed in as distinguished a point

1051]
of view as on ordinary occasions; at the same time, he was sure if they could now be recalled to their country, nothing would be so gratifying to their feelings as to see some plan adopted which should include the commemoration of their brave soldiers, that they might also live in the gratitude of posterity, and of an admiring world. It was, indeed, no less consistent with the duty of that House than it was congenial to their feelings, to address the Crown in order that a monument of national gratitude might be reared to the memory of all those officers and gallant troops who laid down their lives that day, not only for their country, but for the security and happiness of Europe—[Hear, hear!]. He would not trouble the House at any greater length, as he felt that any thing which he could say must be inadequate to the subject, but should proceed to read his motion, viz.
"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that a National Monument be erected in honour of the splendid victory of Waterloo, and to commemorate the fame of the Officers and Men of the British Army, who fell gloriously upon the 16th and 18th of the present month, and more particularly of Lieutenant-general sir Thomas Picton and Major-general the honourable sir William Ponsonby; and to assure his Royal Highness that this House will make good the expense attending the same."
The noble lord then entered into a cursory view of the eminent services performed by both the officers above named. Sir Thomas Picton, he observed, had distinguished himself in Egypt under sir Ralph Abercromby, and in all the great battles which had been fought in the Peninsula and France, by the duke of Wellington; at Badajoz, Ciudad Rodrigo, Vittoria, in the Pyrenees, Orthes, and Thoulouse—[Hear, hear!]. With respect to the other lamented officer, sir William Ponsonby, his career, though short, had been one of eminent renown and glory. At the battle of Salamanca he served under the command of general Le Marchand, who unfortunately fell early in the action; but whatever loss his country sustained, none was felt by the army at that critical moment, for sir William, then colonel Ponsonby, immediately took the command, and led the cavalry against the centre of the enemy, which
[1052
he penetrated with a degree of gallantry and vigour that produced the most important effects. His successful efforts on the day in which his gallant life was laid down, could not be too highly applauded; the charge he made was so decided, so energetic, and so characteristic of his usual ardour and intrepidity, that his corpse was found considerably in the rear of the positions occupied by the enemy—[Hear, hear!]
The motion being read from the chair,
Mr. Wynnexpressed his entire and most cordial concurrence in the motion before the House, and was proceeding to observe, that he hoped the intended monument would not be erected in any particular church, when
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that the intention was to erect a pillar, or triumphal arch, some architectural monument, in fact, suitable to the magnificence of the nation, and which, of course, would not be confined within the walls of a church.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he was glad to hear the explanation of the noble lord. He also wished that the name of every man who fell in that battle should be commemorated. He was aware, that from the great number of names there might be some difficulty in doing that, but still he thought it was practicable, and it would thus become a proud record for any one to refer to who should inherit the name of those gallant warriors; a record which he hoped would never perish. He was anxious, likewise, that distinct monuments should be erected to those two general officers who were mentioned in the motion, especially when it was recollected what their services were, and in how many hard-fought battles they had participated. He had heard that nearly the last words which the gallant Picton uttered before he left this country, was to express a hope, in the presence of two members of that House, that if he should fall, which he seemed to anticipate, he might not be forgotten, but receive the same distinction as had been conferred upon other officers—[Hear, hear!] And perhaps it would be impossible to produce a stronger proof of the wisdom and utility of those honours conferred by that House, and the great effect which the contemplation of them produced on the minds of British officers. There was another thing which he wished to suggest, namely, that medals should be struck in commemoration of the battle, and distributed to the survivors. After

1053]
the battle of the Nile, a patriotic individual caused a number of such medals to be struck and so distributed; and he had heard from many officers that the effect produced by them was of the most gratifying kind. Many of those gallant men who had shared in that battle, when dying in a foreign land, had expressed in their last moments the most anxious solicitude about the disposition of those medals, the record of their services on that glorious day: some wished that it should be buried with them, others that it should be carefully transmitted to their families; but all of them placed more value upon that small medal than on any other property which they happened to possess. He thought, therefore, that it would tend to nourish a noble spirit of emulation and heroic pride, if similar tokens in commemoration of the battle of Waterloo were struck and distributed.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the suggestion of the hon. member, as to the erection of distinct monuments to the memory of sir Thomas Picton and sir W. Ponsonby, was one that the House might readily accede to, as they had only one object in view, that of distinguishing the eminent services of those lamented officers. He would therefore subjoin, as an amendment to the motion, "and that funeral monuments be also erected in memory of each of those two officers in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London."
Mr. Wynn, And that the names of those who fell be inscribed on the National Monument.
Lord Castlereagh.That had better be left for arrangement in the execution of the plan.
General Gascoynesuggested the propriety of interring the body of sir Thomas Picton, which had been brought over to this country, in the Cathedral where a monument was to be raised to his memory. On the day previous to the great victory of the 18th, he had been dangerously wounded. From the moment he had left this country, till he joined the army, he had never entered any bed; he had scarcely given himself time to take any refreshment, so eager was he in the performance of his duty. After the severe wound which he had received, he would have been justified in not engaging in the action of the 18th. His body, he understood, was not only blackened by it, but swelled to a considerable degree; and those who had seen him, wondered that
[1054
he should have been able to take part in the duties of the field. He had fallen, gloriously afterwards at the head of his column, maintaining a position, which, if it had not been kept, would have altered the fate of the day; and its issue might have been different from that which now occasioned such well-founded rejoicings. He repeated his wish that his body should be interred in the Cathedral where the monument was to be erected, and suggested that some of the distinctions conferred on him should be extended to his family.
Mr. W. Smithexpressed his concurrence in the motion, and hoped the suggestion of his hon. friend (Mr. Wynn) would be adopted, for recording the names of all who had fallen. It would have the best possible effect, and might be done with little difficulty. They knew that some of the most famous actions of antiquity were so recorded, and the record had even come down to the present age; He must again repeat what he had pressed upon, the House on a former night, that he hoped a palace would be erected for the duke of Wellington, and that Parliament would not be contented with merely purchasing for him a house which had been built for some other individual.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, he agreed with the sentiments expressed by his hon. friend, and that if a ready-made mansion was provided for the duke of Wellington it would not, in his opinion, mark that full tide of national gratitude which would be conveyed by the erection of a palace, specifically in honour of his great and meritorious services. They would act much more wisely in erecting a palace, even though it should cost somewhat more; they and their posterity, in fact, would be the gainers: for it should be recollected, that in building such a palace, it would be done, not to gratify the duke of Wellington merely, not to acquit themselves of the debt of gratitude they owed him, or to gratify their own feelings, but to show to all the world, that when a great man, selected by Providence, became the instrument and means of conferring signal blessings on mankind, such, a man was to be honoured from first to last. With respect to the motion before the House, it had his entire support.
Mr. Alderman Smithobserved, that there were several large buildings in the country in which national monuments might be erected, and among them was the church of St. Alban's.
Mr. Bankeshad every wish to do justice to the memory of those brave men to whom the country was so deeply indebted for their glorious services in the late victory. From whence, he asked, could the ornamental part of the National Monument which was about to be erected, be better derived than from that centre of the enemy's country to which the inarch of their brave comrades was directed? To that capital which he trusted was, ere now, in the possession of the illustrious Wellington. Paris, twice in the possession of conquerors, ought not to be allowed to retain the plunder which the French had, for so many years, been gathering from the whole of civilized Europe. She ought to be compelled to refund a portion; and no occasion could be so fitting for the employment of it, as the commemoration of the fall of a tyranny oppressive to France itself, and the achievement of a victory glorious to Great Britain.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, although perfectly disposed to afford every honour to the memory of our brave heroes, differed completely from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down as to the mode of accomplishing that object. He could not agree that a national monument to our own army should be ornamented by pillage from the capital of another country. If that pillage were to be surrendered, let it be given to those countries to which it originally belonged. Our intrinsic glory ought not to be diminished by following the example of France; but if that example were followed, let the monument be ornamented with the cannon which were captured in the battle. If he wanted any authority to condemn such a proposition as that, made by the hon. gentleman, he thought he could derive it from the illustrious individual at the head of our troops. On the duke of Wellington's having been very recently reminded, that on the last occasion on which the English army entered France, they behaved with extreme delicacy towards that country; his answer was, "I promise you that if it is in my power they shall behave with equal delicacy now;" a magnanimous declaration, which did as much honour to the man as to the soldier. He strongly recommended, that as the merits of the three countries had been equal in the late battle, a national monument should be erected in Edinburgh, and another in Dublin, as well as that proposed to be erected in London.
Mr. C. Grantalthough, so many hon.
[1056
gentlemen had addressed the House on this subject, yet, in obedience to his feelings, could not allow the question to be put without saying a few words in reference to a gallant and lamented friend, sir Alexander Gordon, who had gloriously fallen in the late memorable contest. He should not enter into any minute description of those qualities in private life which, endeared that brave man to all who had had the happiness of his friendship. Even if his present feelings would permit him to do so, he would abstain from dwelling on that part of his character. The death, of such an officer was a national loss. Although only 29 years of age, his career, short as it had been, had been one of the most active and arduous duty. During the last ten years, his services had been incessant; and he could confidently appeal to all who were acquainted with the British army, whether, among the promising young men with whom it abounded, there was one more eminent for his zeal, more distinguished for his reputation, or more fully possessed of the confidence of the illustrious chief under whom he served, than the gallant officer to whose memory he was, on this occasion, anxious to pay this tribute, unworthy as he felt it to be of his object—[Hear, hear!]. He would not expatiate on the consolations by which the grief of the country on the loss of so many of her brave sons ought to be moderated, but content himself with saying, that, valuable as were the lives which had been sacrificed, they had been sacrificed for the acquisition of a victory almost unparalleled in the annals of the world—a victory which promised more benefit to the cause of humanity and civilization than any military achievement of modern or ancient occurrence; closing, as it did, operations which had crowded, into a few weeks, events that would have been considered most brilliant, had they been the results of many successive campaigns—[Hear, hear!]
Sir C. Burrellobserved, that if, instead of purchasing a mansion, a palace worthy of the illustrious individual who was to inhabit it were to be erected, he would be kept 12, 15, or 2O years without any residence while it was building.
Mr. Wilberforce, in allusion for what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, begged to be allowed to say, that he was sure the duke of Wellington would derive the greatest pleasure from observing the gradual growth of the building

1057]
that national gratitude would erect for him.
The motion was agreed to, nem. con.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Stamp Duties Bill,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerproceeded to state his intentions with respect to the various objects comprehended in the measure. In the clause which related to the composition to be paid by the Bank of England for the exemption of their paper from the Stamp-duty, he meant to propose no alteration. The next subject was the duty on Probates; and as it had been considered a hardship that it should operate on the whole of the effects of the deceased, instead of on the balance after the debts were paid, he intended to propose a drawback to remedy this grievance for the present, although he felt that the whole of this subject was one which must soon undergo parliamentary investigation, with a view to a general, arrangement of it. There were two subjects remaining—one, the licences for the issuing of promissory-notes, which be was content to abandon in this instance, meaning to bring the consideration of them before the House in the next session; the other, the stamps on law proceedings in Scotland, which he proposed to remain as they now stood in the Bill.
On the reading of the first clause, relating to the Bank Composition,
Mr. Grenfellobserved, that he agreed with his right hon. friend on the principle of the proposed composition, and differed from him only as to its extent. He repeated his former statement, that by the neglect of his right hon. friend's two predecessors on this subject, the public had sustained a loss, and the Bank had gained an undue profit, which, correctly calculated from the documents on the table, amounted to no less a sum than 534,183 l, He was happy to make this declaration in the presence of a great number of the Bank Directors; by whom, it unfounded, it would no doubt be controverted. The hon. gentleman proceeded to contend, that up to the year 1799 the composition was fairly estimated, with respect both to the Bank and to the public, but that from the year 1799 to the present moment those circumstances had been overlooked, which had occasioned the loss to the public that he had already mentioned; and in support of this argument, he entered
[1058
into an historical detail of the negotiations between the Government and the Bank in the years 1791, 1799, 1804, and 1808; maintaining that at the two last-named periods no reference had been had to the greatly increased circulation of Bank-of-England paper. The public having lost so much already, he could not conceive on what principle Parliament could now be called upon to give the Bank an additional bonus. Yet such would be the effect if his right hon. friend's proposition were adopted. If the average of paper in circulation were taken for the last three years, as proposed by his right hon. friend, it would produce 87,500 l. If the average were taken of the paper of one year, as proposed by him (Mr. Grenfell), it would mount to 99,000 l. for the notes, besides a large sum for the Bank Post-bills, which the absence of the necessary documents vendered it impossible for him to calculate with accuracy. He could see no reason why the Bank of England should enjoy any greater advantage on this subject than a private banker; and even if his proposition were adopted, they would still have an advantage, as the private banker must pay duty on the notes which he issued, and not on those only in circulation, although he might not circulate nearly as many as he obtained stamps for. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving an amendment to the clause, substituting the average of one year for the average of three years, and providing that the notes should be distinguished into classes of different value, &c.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not consider that Mr. Pitt's principle of arrangement had been materially departed from either by lord Sidmouth or Mr. Perceval. When the Bank stopped payments in cash, it was thought by writers that the outstanding notes amounted to 20,000,000, whereas they were only 12,000,000. The difference between the arrangements was, that the former one was permanent, and the present fluctuating, according to the notes in circulation. He considered himself wholly responsible for this arrangement, such as it stood. He had offered terms consistent with the public advantage, and with the faith of Parliament. The right hon. gentleman contended, that it was vain to enter into an examination as to the equality of charge upon the Bank as compared with what might be paid by private bankers. It was impossible to institute such a com-

1059]
parison, because there was no similarity in the situation of the parties. No private bankers could accommodate Government with the advances made by the Bank of England. The principle on which he had proceeded was, that the public were entilled to as full a composition as was consistent with these indulgencies, the continuance of which the Bank had well merited. He had adopted a triennial average in preference to any other, and, upon the whole, conceived a very advantageous bargain had been concluded, as compared with the former arrangement, without at the same time pushing the Bank to that extreme of concession which was irreconcileable with the system hitherto pursued.
Mr. Bankesthought it a strange fancy to represent the loans at low interest advanced by the Bank as a sort of payment for the licence of trading. The public, in his opinion, paid sufficiently, and even extravagantly for the accommodation, and for the general transaction of its business. All that could be urged in favour of the existing system, was the excellence of the security. But he must object to the use of the word 'composition,' as not expressive of the true idea that ought to prevail. In the Act of Parliament which recognized the present settlement, the word was 'compensation,' and the ordinary convertible term of that word was 'equivalent.' He could see no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should adhere to an erroneous system. When the compensation was first fixed, it was not in the contemplation of Mr. Pitt, or of Parliament, to give any advantage to the Bank; they ought, indeed, rather to pay more than less than other bankers, for the advantage of not being put to the trouble of stamping every note. The Bank ought not to shelter themselves under an unfair construction of former Acts of Parliament. He considered the taking the average as advantageous for the Bank. That opulent body would, he thought, be acting more fairly and honourably by the public, if they did not attempt to claim any exemption from the common burthens of the country.
Mr. B. Shawcontended, that the Bank had acted, not only fairly and honourably, but liberally towards the public. He insisted on the danger of opening transactions entered into by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In stating the amount of Bank paper in circulation, and the duty
[1060
on it, it had been forgotten that three millions were lent by the Bank to Government without any interest, and another three millions at only three per cent. There ought not to be any composition on these six millions.
Mr. Forbessaid, that on the principle laid down by the preceding speaker, all discussion of the present Bill was unnecessary. With regard to the three millions lent to Government without interest, those three millions made only part of eleven millions of public balances in the bands of the Bank.
Mr. Thorntonthought, that enough had been said in defence of the agreement made between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank, to render it unnecessary for him to trouble the committee with any observations. Indeed, he despaired of making any impression on the honourable members opposite to him, as they received every thing that came from any gentleman connected with the Bank with great prejudice, though he could assure them he endeavoured to discharge his duty with uprightness and impartiality between the public and the great corporation for which he was a trustee. Supposing him, however, to err by leaning to the side of the Bank, he was certainly met by a more than equal zeal, and he might say prejudice, by the gentlemen on the other side. He then defended the agreement made at different times for a compensation in the stead of stamp-duties, and gave some explanations respecting the renewal of the charter, and the privileges it gave. On the present occasion a new principle had been agreed upon between the Government and the Bank, which raised the compensation to 87,500 l. a year. It was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and acquiesced in by the Bank. Would the House annul such a contract for the sake of gaining 4,000 l. a year, when they considered the immense transactions the public had with the Bank, and how important it was to maintain its character and credit? Was it nothing to refuse to ratify what the executive government had thought reasonable and just? He then showed some errors in Mr. Grenfell's calculations respecting the profits of the Bank, and sat down with an assurance that the House would always find the directors liberal and fair in their dealings with the public.
Mr. Mellishmade some observations upon the calculations of Mr. Grenfell,

[1061
which he could not agree with. He considered, that it would be fairer to take an average of three years, as was the case in the Property-tax, than to fix upon the last year, which was one when the issues were uncommonly great. Whether, however, the sum was 91,000 l. or 87,000 l. the difference would not be a material object to the Bank.
Mr. Grenfell, in explanation, said, that 99,572 l. would be the proportion that the Bank ought, in his opinion, to pay on account of the issues of the last year. He should, however, abstain from entering more folly into the subject, as the regular discussion would come on on Monday.
Mr. Finlaythought the Bank ought to contribute in the proportion of all other classes of subjects.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, if it had not been for his hon. friend (Mr. Grenfell), this subject would never have come before them; and he had thereby been the means of rendering a most signal service to the country.
General Thorntonexpressed his regret at the frequent attacks made upon the Bank in that House, as being injurious to that establishment, and consequently to the public. He also thought that the gentlemen on the ministerial side were too much in the habit of giving way to such attacks. The honourable general supported the motion.
The House then divided.—For the motion, 32; Against it, 12. A conversation then took place, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Messrs. Mellish, Preston, Grenfell, Huskisson, and Forbes, as to the right which should be vested in Parliament to form a new arrangement, when it might be deemed necessary. It was terminated by the Committee agreeing, on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to leave certain words out of the clause, by which the proposed object would be attained.—On the clause, relative to licences for Scotch bankers being read, Mr. Forbes proposed an amendment, for the purpose of placing the private banks in Scotland in the same situation, with respect to licences, as the chartered banks. This gave rise to a conversation, which was ended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreeing to postpone the original clause, until some gentlemen, connected with the chartered banks of Scotland, were present. The chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-morrow.

DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S ESTATE BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Duke of Wellington's Estate Bill, Mr. Lushington proposed a clause, providing that the illustrious Duke, tits heirs, and his successors, should hold the estate and mansion, voted by Parliament, on condition that a tricoloured flag should be annually presented, on the 18th of June, to his Majesty or his descendants, at the Castle of Windsor. The clause was agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-morrow.

Preamble
Earl Greysaid, he had two petitions to present from certain innkeepers and victuallers of the town of Alnwick, in Northumberland; one praying relief from the additional tax on victuallers' licences, and the other for general relief from the weight of taxation.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed a doubt whether a petition against a tax imposed in the present session could be received.
Earl Greysaid, he should withdraw the petition in question till the existence or non-existence of a rule hostile to its reception could be ascertained.
The Earl of Liverpoolexpressed doubts as to the propriety of receiving the Petition.
Earl Stanhopesaid, there could be no doubt of the practice of the House. He had himself presented a petition (which was received) against all the taxes which pressed on the farmer, some of which had passed in the same session. If a petition could be received against all such taxes, a petition might surely be received against one of them.
The Marquis of Lansdowneobserved, that the reason of the rule by which petions were not received in the Commons against a tax bill which was pending, was, that the Commons, being representatives of the people, might be influenced by the petitions of their constituents. The same reason did not exist in that House. It was also another consideration after the Bill had passed into a law.
The Petition begging for a general redress of grievances was received, and the other was for the present withdrawn.

FREEHOLD ESTATES BILL.
Earl Greyrose to move the commitment of the Freehold Estates Bill. He stated the object of the Bill to be, to make freehold estates liable to the simple contract debts of their deceased possessor. It seemed to need no other arguments than considerations of common policy and common honesty, to induce the House to make an alteration in the existing law, for the purpose of carrying that object into effect. Cases had occurred of very great hardship from the want of a provision of this kind:

1037]
—a person who had incurred simple contract debts to a large amount, and who had actually purchased land with the money, had destroyed himself; and his lands, to the amount of 9000 l. a year, had descended to his heirs, while his creditors received only 2s. 6d.in the pound. This case was known to many of their lordships. Trustees, it was also known, who violated their trusts, incurred only a simple contract debt, and the freehold estates of such persons, if they happened to die, would not be liable to its discharge. The present Bill was not an innovation in principle—it merely would put the freehold estates of persons dying, in the same condition, as to simple contract debts, as with reference to specialty debts; in the same condition as the estates of those subject to the bankrupt laws; in fine, in the same condition as the estates of every honest man, who always, by a special provision in his will, put his creditors in that situation in which it was the object of the present Bill to place all creditors. He should not anticipate objections, but should move that the Bill be committed.
Lord Redesdaleopposed the Bill, on the ground, that by its operation all the estates in the country would be brought into the Court of Chancery, and subjected to endless litigation—even where the personal estate was ultimately sufficient to meet all the claims of the creditors. Small freeholds would be thus annihilated, and a material feature, in the policy of the country, which consisted in the maintenance of this species of property, and which made the possession of a freehold a qualification for so many offices, must be changed.
The Lord Chancellorargued, that in the first place no necessity was shown for the present measure, because every man who gave credit to a person of landed property, knew that in case of the decease of that person, he had no claim on that estate. Every man might have any security for his debts which he chose to take. In the next place, as to the expediency of the measure: it had been the policy of the Legislature, from the very infancy of statute law, to hold real property more sacred than personal, and they had always taken care that no interest in it should be transferred without proper consideration and solemnity. The statute merchant and statute staple only applied to persons who consented to carry on their dealings in a manner which rendered
[1038
their estates liable to be taken in execution; but even by them the rents only were taken, and when the debt was liquidated, the estate reverted to the owner. By the statute of Elizabeth, one half only of an estate was liable to be taken, and that only in virtue of a judgment entered; and this so far depended on the judgment, and not on the debt, that if the possessor of an estate sold it the moment before a judgment was entered, there was no remedy against him. The whole of the law was in the same policy and it formed too material a feature of the whole constitution to overturn it without necessity which he had shown did not exist; for every one could make a law for his own case, by the precaution of making his debt a specialty. The Bill, too, would be productive of evil, by inducing persons to give credit to those who walked over thousands of acres, which on their death would not, even under the present Bill, be assets for their debts. The Bill also would not affect copyholds, which at present were not liable even to specialty debts. It did not affect estates in tail. These were both inconsistencies. Why did not the Bill enact, that persons possessed of estates in tail, should suffer a recovery for the benefit of their creditors? He said this to prove to what extent of innovation the present Bill would lead. He should therefore oppose the motion.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the present notions of innovation would lead to the universal establishment of gavelkind, and the destruction of the present system of tenures. He suppported and enforced the leading arguments of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; and in conclusion observed, that the adoption of such a measure would be like the putting on, for the sake of a little inconvenience, a huge blistering plaster, which would corrode and gangrene the whole system.
Earl Stanhopesaid, there were two parts in the Bill, the object, and the means by which that object was to be carried into, execution. The object he did not disapprove of, but the means by which it was to be brought about were unconstitutional and mischievous. The whole execution of the Bill was to be given to the Court of Chancery, a court where all witnesses were examined in private, and never cross-examined, and where one suit lasted as long as a hundred suits at common law. Too much of the business of the country was already thrown into that Court. Every

1039]
blunderer in the House of Commons, who knew not what else to do, sent them to the Court of Chancery. He should on this ground oppose the Bill, on account of the means by which it was proposed to execute it, which cast an imputation on the trial by jury.
Earl Greyreplied. It appeared to him that the apprehensions of the noble lords of the vast increase of Chancery business from the present Bill, were unfounded. He should appeal to facts. Was it true that all estates which were burthened with specialty debts, that every real estate which the proprietor by will had made liable to his simple contract debts, were thrown into that court? The only principle which the noble lords, with all their learning, had established, was one which, from what he had heard and read, he was more and more inclined to concur in; that the laws were in such a state as to be a grievance almost intolerable to the people of this country. Indeed, what could be a worse state of the laws than one which so teemed with vices, that all the great lawyers in that House professed themselves unable to devise means whereby a just creditor could obtain payment of a debt out of a freehold estate without such expense, that the estate itself would be wasted to nothing, and vexation to the parties not to be endured? If this were the real state of the law, it loudly called for revision. As for his noble friend who spoke last, if he objected to the mode only of executing the purpose of the Bill, the committee was the place to amend the provisions he complained of.
The motion was negatived without a division, and the Bill was ordered to be committed that day six months.