Sitting of 27 May 1825

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.
Mr. Littletonmoved, that the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on this bill be discharged. The rejection of the Catholic Relief bill, in the other House, rendered such a step, on his part, necessary. Were the Elective Franchise, bill to pass without the other, it would produce great dissatisfaction.
Colonel Daviesexpressed a, hope, that

903
the bill would be brought forward at some future period, as a substantive measure.
Sir J. Newporthoped, that the suggestion of the last speaker would not be attended to. It would be most disgusting to the people of Ireland to pass such a bill unaccompanied by any measure of relief.
Colonel Palmer roseand proceeded to comment upon the conduct of ministers, and the speeches made by Mr. Canning.
The Speakerinterrupted the hon. member, to inform him, that it was irregular to found his observations upon what had been said by a member in a former debate.
Colonel Palmersaid, that having given notice of his intention on a former night, he had conceived that he was strictly in order.
Mr. Hutchinsonexpressed his regret for the cause which had induced the hon. member to withdraw his bill; although he rejoiced that the measure was got rid of in any way, conceiving it to be most mischievous and unconstitutional.
The order was then discharged.

OPPRESSION AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE-PETITION OF JOHN CARNALL.
Mr. Hume rose, to present a petition from a person of the name of Carnall, complaining of a series of acts of oppression to which he had been subjected at the Cape of Good Hope. When an Englishman went to any of our colonies, he imagined that he carried with him the rights of a British subject, but in this expectation he was sorry to say that he would, for the most part, find himself entirely deceived. The will and pleasure of the governors of colonies became the law of the land, and if any individual was unfortunate enough to incur the displeasure of a governor, he was almost sure to be made the victim of the most arbitrary and tyrannical oppression. Of this truth, the circumstances detailed in this petition, which were supported by the affidavit of the petitioner, afforded a striking illustration. The oppression to which this petitioner had been subjected, was of such a nature as to call loudly upon the legislature to institute an inquiry into the general system of our colonial governments, by which the liberty, the property, and even the lives, of his majesty's subjects were made dependant on the arbitrary will of the governors. It was necessary to state to the House,
904
that the petitioner first became acquainted with a person of the name of Edwards, who practised as a notary at the Cape of Good Hope, in consequence of his having been summoned as a witness in a trial in which Edwards was concerned. On the 17th of September, Mr. Edwards was on his way from the Cape of Good Hope, in order to embark for Botany Bay, to which place he was sentenced to be transported for seven years, for having written a letter to lord Charles Somerset, in which he claimed redress for some alleged grievances at the hands of that governor. He had in his possession all the papers connected with this transaction, and he should be able, in a few days, to lay before the House a full statement of all the circumstances under which this iniquitous sentence was inflicted. Mr. Edwards, attended by the Police officer, stopped at the petitioner's house, to take breakfast, and during the whole of this time the petitioner had no communication whatever with Edwards, except in the presence of the officer. Mr. Edwards, had occasion to retire after breakfast, and some time after, it was ascertained that he had made his escape. The petitioner declared that he was in no way accessary to this escape. At the time Mr. Edwards was about to embark, he was informed that lord Charles Somerset had, in a letter to the governor of the colony, instructed him to put him upon hard labour, and other degrading offices, which his pride and feelings as a gentleman, and a man of education, could not brook; and it was this circumstance, he believed, which had induced him to attempt to make his escape. On the news of Edwards's escape, a party under the orders of his majesty's Fiscal, proceeded to the petitioner's house, and took him into arrest. The petitioner sought in vain to obtain a sight of any legal instrument or warrant by which he was arrested; he was dragged from his home, conveyed to Cape Town, and confined in a cell 10 feet by 12, front the 17th of September to the 24th of December. He would ask, what would be the feelings of any hon. member who should thus be dragged from his home, and conducted to a cell of the dimensions he had described, with no other bedding than the mattress on which the dead were stretched, and that swarming with vermin? Yet, there was no man, whatever might be his property, or station, who was not liable, under the present system of

905
our colonial governments, to be oppressed by the arbitrary will of the governor. The petitioner was subject to fits, and was afflicted with some severe paroxysms during the first ten days of his confinement. Under such circumstances, all assistance was refused to him, and he was not permitted to have the slightest communication with his family. On the second day he was furnished with a pen, but for the first ten days no one was allowed to enter his cell, even for the purpose of shaving him. By the Dutch law it was not in the power of the governor to keep any man in confinement for a longer period than eight days without bringing him to trial. This law was utterly disregarded in the case of the petitioner. He begged to call the attention of the House to what followed. There was no principle in the English law more clearly established, than that an individual who had been tried on a criminal charge and convicted, could not be tried again for the same offence. This principle had been set at defiance in the petitioner's case, for the sole purpose of aggravating the severity of his punishment. He was brought to trial before two Dutch justices, and found guilty of having assisted the escape of Edwards. But, upon what evidence was he found guilty? The House would be astonished to learn, that a man of high respectability, possessing considerable property in the colony, had been found guilty, on the testimony of his own slave girl, who had been compelled to give evidence against her master, under a threat of severe flogging, if she refused to comply. Such was the tyranny of lord Charles Somerset, that if any man ventured to open his mouth to object to his conduct, he was liable to be deprived of his liberty and his property, and to be persecuted even unto death. The petitioner was sentenced to a fine of fifty rix-dollars, and one year's banishment from the colony. It might have been supposed, that this was sufficient to satisfy the rancour of his persecutors; but his majesty's fiscal, not satisfied with this punishment, appealed to another jurisdiction, and again brought the prisoner to trial. On this second trial he was sentenced to five years transportation to Botany Bay. Upon appealing afterwards against this additional punishment, the governor, in his clemency, commuted it to five years banishment from the colony. He was further compelled to deposit a sum of 2,000 rix-dollars, by way of secu-
906
rity for his compliance with the terms of his sentence, and this money had been detained up to the moment of his embarkation for this country. Even supposing the charge against this petitioner to have been true, the punishment was such as could not, by the Dutch law, be legally inflicted. The petitioner declared, that the power of his majesty's fiscal was of such terrific magnitude, that any man who was unfortunate enough to incur the displeasure of the governor, was sure to be tormented by the forms of law, deprived of his property, and compelled to leave the colony. The petitioner had returned pennyless to this country; he had applied to the government to obtain copies of the proceedings against him, but all documents had been denied him. He (Mr. H.) called upon the hon. Secretary opposite, to state the grounds on which the colonial department had refused to furnish the petitioner with the means of obtaining redress for the injuries of which he complained. There existed at the Cape a sort of society, under the administration of lord C. Somerset, wholly inconsistent with all good government. He did not blame that noble person so much as the government at home, for allowing him to remain there; and the House of Commons would be much to blame if they tolerated his continuance after this statement. He was ready to prove those facts before a committee; and lord Bathurst, also, had much to answer for, if, as he believed, all these acts were known at the Colonial Department. The case of the petitioner was well worthy of inquiry. He was entitled to the amplest pecuniary compensation for the loss he had sustained; reparation for all the other wrongs and degradation he had endured, it would be impossible to make him. He had simply confined himself to this particular case; but, if an inquiry were instituted, the House would learn the gross oppressions which that colony had suffered, was suffering, and seemed doomed to suffer, under lord C. Somerset's administration.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, it was not his intention to enter into the merits of the particular complaint which had just been stated by the hon. member; but the hon. member had inculpated the colonial department, and to that part of the case he begged to address himself. The hon. member complained, that the petitioner had been subjected to certain punishment, having been convicted in a court of justice

907
for having contributed to effect the escape of a prisoner under sentence of transportation. This was the complaint. Now, he would ask, was this the act of the governor? By no means. The petitioner was regularly convicted in a court of justice, and sentenced to transportation; and how the governor must necessarily be mixed up in the case, he was quite at a loss to conceive. The petitioner had applied to the colonial department for redress; but, he would ask the House whether it was the duty of those at the head of that branch of the government, to take the single testimony of persons like the petitioner, and upon his evidence alone to order the remission of the sentence? If Such a course were to be pursued, it would be quite impossible that the government of any colony could be carried on. All that they could or ought to do was, to investigate into any allegation of practical injustice, and afford redress; and, upon this part of the subject he prayed the attention of the House. They all knew very well the extent to which accusations against the government at the Cape had been promulgated. If the hon. member supposed that the colonial department were ignorant of those charges, he was much mistaken; for since the 1st January, 1824, there appeared in one newspaper, no less than twenty-four inculpatory articles, and surely this was warning enough. But, what were the facts of the case? In the year 1823, commissioners were sent out to the Cape of Good Hope. Did the hon. member propose to cast any aspersions on their character, or for one moment doubt their integrity? Did he say they were improper persons to be in-trusted with such a charge? If they should prove to be so, which he could not believe, then was the government greatly deceived. They had received certain instructions upon which they were to act, and they were to report the result of their inquiries to the government; but if, in the pursuit of those inquiries, any accidental delay had taken place, in consequence of sickness, or death, or in any other manner, the government was not to be blamed. They were sent to the Cape for the purpose of introducing a change in the Dutch law, with a view to assimilate it to the law of England. And, could such an important change as this be effected in a moment? He begged to remind the house, that they had to investigate the nature of the Dutch law
908
and its administration, and to report to the executive government, the necessary information, with a view to remedy the abuses. At the very moment when this act was alleged to have been committed, there were commissioners actually in the colony investigating the law in question. He was very far from deprecating inquiry. On the contrary, as soon as the report of the commissioners should be received, he would lay it on the table. The House would be surprised at the mode in which these applications were made; and, indeed, the hon. member for Aberdeen was in some degree responsible; but it was impossible to credit the numbers of insulting applications made to the colonial office. All he asked the House was, to suspend their judgment until the report was received. The report, in one case, had been already received —he meant in that of Edwards; and if any gentleman wished to move for its production, he was ready to lay it on the table. In the particular case before the House he begged to state all he knew of it. The petitioner first laid his case and diary before lord Bathurst, and he himself (Mr. W. Horton) told him, if he had a specific complaint to make, to draw it up. The petitioner then wrote a letter to lord Bathurst, in which he complained, that "the injustice he had suffered had no parallel, and that nothing short of a remission of the sentence and a full pecuniary compensation would satisfy him." To this application an answer was given him, "That lord Bathurst had received no information respecting the judicial proceeding but from his own statement." The commissioners would include this case in the general report of the administration of justice; and of course, if a defect were found in the system, it would be remedied.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, be had received information respecting one of the commissioners, who had been in such a state of health as entirely to unfit his mind for pursuing the inquiry. If the whole country were, searched for a man of the utmost assiduity, ability, and integrity, he did not know of one more qualified than Mr. Commissioner Bigg.
Mr. Humesaid, that the government at home should insist, that whenever a complaint of this nature was made, in which the rights of a British subject had been violated; the governor should be bound to send home all the documents

909
connected with the subject. If that rule were enforced they would hear of fewer complaints.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PROVISION FOR THE DUCHESS OF KENT, AND DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the King's Message,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose. He said, that as the House of Commons had never been found wanting in inclination to manifest its attachment to the Crown upon occasions like the present, he should not think it necessary to preface what he had to offer, with any appeal to the dispositions of the House upon that subject. In the year 1818, a message had been brought down from the throne, announcing the intention of his late royal highness the duke of Kent to marry, and recommending that the House should take into its consideration what would be requisite for the dignity of the reigning family, and the honour of the country, upon such an occasion; and the House had then proceeded to make a grant of 6,000 l. a year on the marriage of, in addition to the income already enjoyed by, the royal duke; with a further provision of 6.000 l. a year for the duchess, in case it should so happen that she was left a widow. Now, that provision had been sufficient under the circumstances; but it had not contemplated the possible fact of the duchess surviving her husband, and being left with children. Of course it would be obvious that, situated as the members of the royal family were, money —to use a homely phrase—would not go so far with them as it would with other people. They had a state to maintain, which did not fall upon any other class of persons; and their charities, public and private, were considerable. Now, since this provision of 6,000 l. a year for the duchess of Kent had been made, the duke of Kent had died, and a daughter had been born, who was now six years old. It could not be necessary for him, therefore, to point out to the House the propriety of giving a suitable education to a young princess so situated. The position in which this princess stood with respect to the throne of the country, could not fail to make her an object of general interest to the nation. He had not himself the honour of being acquainted with the duchess of Kent, or with that young lady; but she was six
910
years old; and, as far as her education had proceeded, he believed the greatest pains had been taken with her. She had been brought up in principles of piety and morality, and to feel a proper sense —he meant by that an humble sense—of her own dignity, and the rank which, perhaps, awaited her. Perhaps it might have been fit to have brought this matter before parliament at an earlier period; but the duchess of Kent had been assisted by her royal brother, prince Leopold. That, however, was not the way in which a public question could regularly be dealt with; and, with respect to the duchess of Kent, therefore, his proposition would be—that an addition of 6,000 l. a year, for the maintenance and education of her daughter, should be granted to her royal highness.—In the next place, it would be his duty to call the attention of the House to the case of his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. At the time of the royal duke's marriage, a proposition similar to that agreed to for the duke of Kent had been submitted to parliament, but had not been complied with. There had been, the fact was, some objection taken to the marriage. The duchess, from some cause, had not been received at court. These circumstances had probably influenced the conduct of the House; because, the only mode in which parliament could express its disapprobation of any royal marriage was, by withholding that provision which should be given for its support. Whatever the motive had been, the subject had been pressed a second time in tile year 1818, and had failed; but parliament had then granted, as in the case of the duke of Kent, a provision of 6,000 l. to the duchess of Cumberland, in case she happened to be left a widow. Since that time, however, a prince had been born—a son of the duke of Cumberland—who was now six years old. His position was certainly one of more remote proximity to the throne than that of the daughter of the duke of Kent; but still the country was interested in his education, and a suitable one ought to be given to him. One thing, above all, was desirable, that the education of this young prince—upon every account both moral and constitutional—should be in England. His intention was, to propose, with respect to the duke of Cumberland, that 6,000 l. a year should be granted to him for the education of his son-intending that education to be given in England.

911
He should sit down, therefore, by moving, as his first resolution. "That his majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 6,000 l., to her royal highness the duchess of Kent, for the purpose of making an adequate provision for the honourable support and education of her highness the princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent."
Mr. Broughamsaid, that the right hon. gentleman, in submitting his motion, had not deviated from the strict line of usage adopted onsimilar occasions, and had done no more than justice to the feeling which actuated the House. He was ever desirous not only to uphold the maintenance of the splendor and dignity of the reigning prince, but the splendor and dignity of all the other branches of the royal family. And if, in the whole of such a consideration, there was one point that was pre-eminently desirable, it was, to provide for the suitable education of the younger branches of that family. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman, was undoubtedly, extremely liberal. Still, he was not prepared to say, that on that account he should stand out against it. He was disposed most certainly to afford the fullest provision for that young princess, who was the presumptive heiress of the British throne. With respect to the refusal of former grants to the duke of Cumberland, he begged to set the right hon. gentleman right. It was not on account of the marriage of his royal highness, that the House of Commons refused the former proposed grants. If the marriage was improper, why was it not prevented by the advisers of the Crown, by the marriage laws: or, if it was felt to be unsuitable, why was it sanctioned by any subsequent offer of a settlement? But, it was not the marriage [hear, hear!]. He believed it was a rotoed dislike, whether ill-founded or well-founded he was not called upon to say; but he believed it to be a rooted dislike which procured the rejection of those grants. There most certainly existed a prejudice against that royal duke throughout the whole country—it was felt by man, woman, and child [hear, hear!]. The duke of Cumberland, it would be recollected, bad already 18,000 l. per annum, and the 15th regiment of Dragoons, which made his income 19,000 l. a year. He lived abroad, not
912
because he held any office, as the duke of Cambridge did, but he lived abroad to please himself. He lived in a cheap country too; where his income of 19,000 l. per annum was equal to 30,000 l. in this country. When, therefore, 6,000 l. additional was asked for him and his family, why did he not shew himself amongst them [hear, hear!]? The House was called upon to grant an additional sum to sustain his and his family's dignity. Why did he not, spend his income here, to maintain the dignity and splendor of the country from whence he drew his funds [hear, hear!]? How different was the conduct of his royal brother, the heir presumptive. How differently provided for, and he said so with regret, was the duke of York,—crippled as he was with debts. Yet, to liquidate those debts he has never applied to parliament [hear, hear!]. He resided in England. Why did not the duke of Cumberland follow his example? What was there to prevent his living here? How did they know, after the House had voted the money, that he would allow his son to come to England? He Was not satisfied to vote the money for the education of that young prince on the mere expectation. He must be first satisfied, before the House parted with the money. He knew that the public purse was considered in a plethoric state; and certainly the present course was no bed means of relieving the extraordinary fullness. Let, however, the money be paid here, when the young prince arrived; otherwise there was no security for its being spent in this country. He would much rather subscribe to pay the debts of another branch of that august family, whose carriages were notoriously taken in execution in the public streets [hear, hear!]. Were not such circumstances calculated to sully the splendor of the royal family? Was it not of importance to secure the royal dignity against embarrassments and debts, the effect of which were to subject the illustrious personage, even when he visited a race-course, to such accidents, as honourable members, if it happened to themselves, would consider a permanent disgrace. It was impossible for him to conclude this subject without adverting to the great loss which this country had sustained by the death of the lamented duke of Kent. No man, who duly appreciated his talents, his enlightened opinions, and his habits of business, but must

913
regret it as a great national deprivation. His private virtues survived in his illustrious widow, who was most assiduous in doing that which a mother was best fitted to do; namely, superintending the education of the infant princess.
Mr. Humesaid, he must enter his protest against the principle of paying the debts of any member of the royal family, who was already provided with a most liberal income from the state. He had no objection to the provision for the princess, the daughter of the duchess of Kent. He thought that, in place of the large grant now asked, an addition ought to have been made three years ago, and gradually increased from that period. But though even he stood alone, he should oppose and take the sense of the House upon the grant to even the duke of Cumberland. After the two former decisions of that House, it was monstrous to have such a proposition introduced. At all events, let the young prince be brought to this country. He would undertake for 100 l. a year to get him a better education than he would get abroad for the 6,000 l. [Mr. Brougham said, in a low tone, "Aye, at the new University"]. Aye, resumed Mr. Hume, at the new university; but, in England it was essential that all the members of the royal family should be educated. If left in foreign countries, it was impossible that they should not, imperceptibly get impressions not congenial with the free principles of the British constitution. But he thought the duke of Cumberland was bound to educate his own children out of his 19,000 l. a-year income. Why, would it be believed that his late majesty never allowed the duke of Kent above 600 l. a-year, until he reached the age of manhood, and that sum was doled out at a pound a time by his tutors. No separate allowance had been given to the duke until he was thirty-one years of age. The dukes of York and Clarence were provided for earlier. He would not consent to vote a farthing more to the duke of Cumberland, until it should be proved that the 19,000 l. a-year was rot sufficient.
Sir I. Coffinexpressed his hope, that the chancellor of the Exchequer would soon bring down a message from his majesty, recommending to the House to make a provision for the payment of the debts of the heir presumptive. To his knowledge his royal highness owed 12,000 l. to his tailor alone.
Mr. Moncksaid, that if it were true that the heir presumptive was in such distress, and if a proposition was made for a grant for him, he would vote for it, because he wished to support the splendor of the Crown. He could not, however, agree to this grant of 6,000 l. a-year to the duke of Cumberland to educate the young prince in a foreign country. He should wish to know how the monarchs of France, or Prussia, or Austria, would like to have the members of their family educated out of their own country. If he did not think that the allowance of 6,000 l. to the duchess of Kent was much too small, he should consider the proposed allowance to the young princess as too large; but on that consideration he should not object to it. To the vote for the son of the duke of Cumberland, he decidedly objected.
Sir C. Forbessaid, he should vote for both grants; and expressed his surprise that they had not been brought forward sooner. He had always thought it most disgraceful to the country, that prince Leopold should have been allowed to take upon himself any part of the expenses of his royal sister, in consequence of the insufficiency of her allowance. With respect to the duke of Cumberland, it was certainly true that he lived abroad, but it was also true that his income was no greater than when he was a bachelor. Why did he live abroad? Because he could not live in this country on his income. He hoped that the allowance would be made to the duke which ought to have been made to him at his marriage, and that the arrears from that period would be paid to him. He could not help expressing his astonishment at the dark insinuations that had been thrown out in the House against this prince; insinuations which would have been scouted, bad they been levelled at any other individual. If any one had a charge to make against the duke of Cumberland, his royal highness was a subject of the realm, and amenable to the law. There seemed to be a disposition not only to condemn the duke unheard, but to punish him unheard.
Sir J. Marjoribanksexpressed a hope that a message would be brought down, recommending to the House to make provision for the payment of the debts of the heir presumptive. There was no man more beloved as the soldier's friend, as the friend of the soldier's widow, as the

915
friend of the soldier's child, than the duke of York. The skilful arrangements of the duke were the original source of those brilliant victories which had raised Great Britain to so eminent a rank among the nations of Europe; and he was convinced that such a royal message would be received with satisfaction from one end of the country to the other.
Mr. T. Wilsonwas willing to give his assent to the first proposition; but had some doubt with respect to the second. With respect to the duke of York, no man in the country was more respected, or was more disposed to do all the good in his power. He was persuaded that such a message from his majesty as that which had been adverted to, would give universal satisfaction.
Mr. Bernalsaid, that nothing could be more injurious to the members of the royal family than the attempts of injudicious friends to excite a feeling which, from circumstances, could not possibly be universal. When the proposition for adding to the allowance of the duke of Cumberland was formerly brought before that House, after much discussion, the proposed grant was refused. His royal highness, however, enjoyed 19,000 l. a-year; and had resided for some time in Germany, where living was considerably cheaper than in England. It was difficult, therefore, to understand why he did not possess the means of educating his own son. The chancellor of the Exchequer, however, proposed a part of 6,000 l. a-year for that purpose; but accompanied that proposition with a statement, that the royal child ought to be removed from the care of its parents, and educated in this country. If any insinuation had been thrown out against the duke of Cumberland, it was surely this observation of the right hon. gentleman. There was no reason to believe that his royal highness intended to live in this country. He, for one, could not consent to the proposed grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that what had fallen from him, respecting the young prince, involved the slightest insinuation against the duke of Cumberland. He had never declared, that it was indispensably necessary to take him from his father. What he had said was, that as the proposed grant was asked for on the ground of giving the young prince an adequate education, it was the feeling of government, and of the king himself, that
916
he ought to be educated in England. With regard to the objections, made on a former occasion, to an increase to the duke of Cumberland's allowance, they were founded in general, on disapprobation of his marriage; although he allowed that there were a few individuals who opposed the grant on personal grounds. If, however, personal dislike was really the ground for rejecting the proposed increase on the occasion to which he had alluded, it was exceedingly ungracious in those, who declared that the duke of Cumberland was the object of dislike and reprobation in the country, now to taunt him with not residing in the country. He had been asked, if he knew any thing of the state of the duke of Cumberland's pecuniary affairs? He really did not. He believed that, at one time, his royal highness was labouring under considerable embarrassment; but whether or not that was still the case he did not know. One cause of the residence of his royal highness abroad was, the delicate, state of the Duchess's health, which required that she should avail herself of the baths of the continent. There was no reason to believe that the duke would not return to England, if, in point of income, he was placed on a footing with his royal brothers. But it would be most ungracious for the opponents of the grant to say, We refused you an addition of 6,000 l. a-year to your income because we disliked you; and we now refuse the proposed grant for the education of your son, because you will net come among us." As to the comparison that had been made between the expenses of the duke of Sussex and the expenses of the duke of Cumberland, it was groundless; for although the duke of Sussex was married, yet, as the marriage was contrary to the royal marriage act, his children were not princes of the blood; and besides, he lived in a state of separation from his lady, who possessed an income of 3 or 4,000 l., which she enjoyed either from the royal bounty or under an act of parliament; he did not recollect which. There was, therefore, not the slightest analogy between the two cases.
Mr. J. Martinsaid, that if he consented to add 6,000 l. a-year to the 19,000 l. already possessed by the duke of Cumber-land, he should think that he grossly violated his duty to his constituents, by so appropriating any part of the money which was hardly wrung from them. To

917
the other grant he had far less objection. He trusted, however, that the right hon. gentleman would not press his motion in the present thin state of the House.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that the absence of the hon. members was a pretty satisfactory proof that they considered the proposition by no means unreasonable, otherwise they would have been in their places to oppose it. With respect to the proposed grant to the duchess of Kent, it seemed to be generally admitted that it was necessary to enable her royal highness to continue to discharge her maternal duties in the exemplary manner in which she had hitherto fulfilled them. With respect to the grant, for the education of the son of the duke of Cumberland, he really thought the House could not seriously object to it, although the hon. member for Montrose had declared that he could provide an adequate education for the young prince for 100 l. a-year; and had afterwards named the college which it was proposed to institute in or about London, mainly for the education of mechanics, as the very place for the son of the duke of Cumberland. The former objection of the House to the augmentation of the duke of Cumberland's allowance, were founded upon the marriage of his royal highness, which had not met with the approbation of a certain individual. Circumstances had now materially changed. If the House had refused to vote a certain increase of income to the duke when his royal highness had no issue, was that any reason for their now refusing to provide for such issue? If objection had been made to placing the duke upon an equality, in point of income, with his royal brothers, and if his highness had, in consequence of such refusal, been obliged to reside abroad, the more incumbent was it upon the House to provide for the education of his child. Whether that child was or was not destined to rule in future over these kingdoms, it was equally necessary that he should receive a proper education. The House ought to decide the question upon its own merits.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, he gave his most cordial support to the resolutions. But he was so anxious that the education of the young prince should take place in this country, that he wished to see some stipulations annexed to the resolutions by which that object would be secured. He wished also to know whether the enforce-
918
ment of such a condition would involve the necessity of the royal duke himself residing in this country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the provision now asked for had for its foundation the pledge that the young prince should be educated in this country. If the education of the young prince did not take place in this country, then he should be guilty of misleading the House. He was not authorised to state whether the duke, in consequence, of the fulfilment of the above condition with regard to his son, intended to take up his residence in this country.
Sir E. Knatchbullwished to ask, whether if the young prince remained five or six years abroad, and then repaired to England to commence his education, that would be considered as a compliance with the condition which was understood to be coupled with this resolution?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had no hesitation in saying it would not; and if such was the course that would be pursued, the object of the grant would not be answered, and he should be grossly deceived.
Mr. Denman said, he was aware that there was something very gracious in making grants to persons of exalted rank, and that it was considered niggardly, or even worse, to refuse a portion of the public money to one of the royal family; but, for his part, he thought that liberality to the prince should not be carried to the extent of becoming injustice to the people. He could not agree that the expense in the present instance was of no consequence; on the contrary, he thought it of the greatest consequence, as the present grant would set the scale of many other expenses. He was the more anxious to commence his opposition now, as he perceived that there was an eagerness in some quarters to follow up the precedent set by the ministers that night, and to multiply the examples of lavish disposal of the public money. No sooner had the resolutions of that night been submitted to the committee, than one hon. member stepped forward and declared, that he would not only vote the grant, but also for all the arrears since an addition had been made to the income of the other members of the royal family. Another faithful guardian of the public suggested the propriety of paying the debts of the duke of York, whom he semed to think the most popular man in the Country;

919
and, as one item of those debts, a gallant admiral had informed the House, that the royal duke owed no less than 12,000 l. to his tailor; so that, because of this gross extravagance, which would not be countenanced in a private individual, the country was to be plundered, and asked to make good debts to he knew not what amount. Every person was bound to know the extent of his own income, and could have no right to exceed that income, and then ask the public to reward his past, and encourage his future misconduct, by relieving him from his embarrassments. He, for one, could not consent to see the public thus plundered, without mercy and without shame. He thought the cases of the duke of Cumberland and the duchess of Kent totally dissimilar. In the former case, only 6,000 l. a-year was granted to the duchess for the support and suitable education of the heiress presumptive to the Crown. Of the moderation of this grant, none entertained the least doubt; but then came the chancellor of the Exchequer with what he so oddly called "a more distant proximity," and was for extending the bounty of parliament to nephews, nieces, and to the third and fourth generations. Not one of these might come to the Crown, and the public, therefore, had little interest in them; nor could it be said that their education would be good in proportion to the number of thousand pounds granted for that purpose. [hear, hear, hear!] He could not see why the duke of Cumberland should now take 6,000 l. a-year from the people, because he had had a son born six years ago. He already took from them 19,000 l. a-year, all of which he spent abroad. His royal highness had thought proper to withdraw himself from the observations of the English public, and perhaps he had done wisely; if he thought it prudent to reside abroad, the last thing the House ought to do, would be to bring him back to reside in England. The government seemed to have taken the best possible care that the present grant should be unconditional. Now, he thought that the least the public could expect, at the hands of their representatives, was, that they should not grant away the public money for any object, without making the performance of that object the condition of the grant. The duke received a liberal allowance from this country, although it might not be so large as what was granted to his relatives, who had not been subject to public
920
animadversion. Twice had the opinions of parliament been expressed upon the public maintenance of the duke, and he trusted that the opposition to the present measure would be vigorous and firm; nor did he despair of seeing it effectual.
Mr. Secretary Canningprotested against the course adopted by members, of discussing the rights of persons hypothetically. He thought that an illustrious person had been most unfairly dealt by. His royal highness had abstained from bringing his private affairs before parliament, and it was a most unkind reward for such forbearance, to moot the point by supposititious arguments, whether if he did apply to the House, he would be deemed a fit object of relief. It was not by any person professing friendship for the duke of York that his name had been introduced; and yet the conduct of his royal highness had been discussed, as freely as if he had sued, in forma pauperis, for relief. With reference to the duchess of Kent, all parties agreed in the propriety of the grant, and if government had any thing to answer for on this point, it was for having so long delayed bringing it before the House. There could not be a greater compliment to her loyal highness than to state the quiet, unobstrusive tenor of her life, and that she had never made herself the object of public, gaze, but had devoted herself to the education of her child, whom the House was now called upon to adopt. —With respect to the other resolution, let the committee treat it as one that would give a provision, not to the duke of Cumberland, but t o his child, who was next in importance to, the object of the first vote. Two objections were taken to this grant, which appeared to him to destroy each other. It was said that the duke of Cumberland, with his son, resided abroad, and nothing, it was thought, could be more contaminating for a prince who might one day have to sway the destinies of this nation, than that he should receive his education in a foreign kingdom. It was then said, that the duke of Cumberland found it necessary to stay abroad; that he was so odious as to have been refused, in two discussions of that House, the benefit of an application made in his behalf. Now, the object of this vote was to secure the domestic education of the son, who was in a situation to become one day a successor to the Crown of England. The grant was asked for the use of this prince; not because he Was the son of the

921
duke of Cumberland, but because he stood in a relation to the Crown a little more remote, or, to use the words of his right hon. friend, because he was in a situation of proximity, but more distant proximity, than the daughter of the duchess of Kent, to the throne. The phrase had been excepted to by the learned gentleman; but he thought without foundation; for he believed the expression, "longiore proximus intervallo," was familiar to every classical mind. His right hon. friend had been asked, what security was there that the education of the young prince would take place in England He would answer, that it would be the duty of his majesty's responsible advisers, to see that not one farthing of the grant was issued, unless the condition were complied with. It was said, that the House had already twice decided on this question. They had decided on the proposition of a grant; but not on the grounds now stated. The principal objection on the first occasion was to the marriage of his royal highness; and on the second occasion, the same ground was taken. It was objected now, that the royal duke continued to reside in a foreign country, and it was at the same time said, that there was a lurking dislike to him in this. Surely, if the latter were true—which he denied—it was cruel to make his residence abroad an objection. But, he did not reside abroad from any dislike to his country, or from a consciousness of being disliked in it. One reason why the royal duke resided in the country or his wife's relations was, that he had not the means of supporting himself and his family with comfort in England. The first pride of his heart, if he could have accomplished it with any degree of comfort to himself and his royal consort, would have been to live in the country in which he drew his birth; but as he was not able to do so, it was not unnatural that he should seek in her country, among her relations, those enjoyments which his fortune would not enable him to obtain in his own. The royal duke had now a child who was six years old, and therefore of an age when his education became a matter of importance. If there were any reasons which compelled the royal duke to reside abroad, as was insinuated, it was surely fit to rescue the child, who might be the future king of England, from the sphere of their influence. He contended, that the contingency to which he had just alluded was a suffi-
922
cient reason why parliament should secure the education of the prince of Cumberland in this country. With regard to the securities which had been demanded for the child's education in England, he thought that they were to be found in sufficient strength in the responsibility of ministers, who were bound to see the grant applied as the resolution of the committee directed.
Sir C. Forbesgave his assent to both the resolutions. He recollected a conversation which he had with a member of the opposition, when the former proposal to increase the income of the duke of Cumberland was under the consideration of parliament. He was asking, how it was that so many members had come up three or four hundred miles from the country to vote against the proposition, and he was told that it was because the duke had assisted in outsting the administration of all the talents. He trusted that at present no such vindictive motive operated upon the mind of any individual, and complained, that the House had shown itself at all times too niggardly in making provision for those royal individuals whom it was bound to support.
Mr. John Williamswished the hon. baronet to reconcile, if he could, the empty benches of the opposition at that moment, with the unworthy motives he had assigned for their conduct. There was one objection to this resolution which he did not see how to obviate. The duchess of Kent had only 6,000 l. a-year, whilst the duke of Cumberland had 19,000 l. Why, then, was the same addition to be made to the income of both? He would vote for an amendment which went to reduce the sum proposed to be given to the duke of Cumberland.
The resolution was then agreed to nem. con. The chancellor of the Exchequer next moved, "That his majesty beenabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund, not exceeding the sum of 6,000 l. to his royal highness the duke of Cumberland, for the purpose of making an adequate provision for the honourable support and education of his highness prince George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Augustus of Cumberland."
Mr. Crippsproposed, as an amendment, that after the word "education," the words "in Great Britain" be added.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he felt conscious of having endeavoured to induce the committee to agree

923
to this resolution upon false pretences, he might not, perhaps, object to fetter the grant with the condition which the hon. member would add to it. After what had fallen from his right hon. colleague, and himself, he did not see how a more unequivocal pledge could be given to the committee than that it had already received. It was unnecessary to insert such a condition in the grant as the hon. member now proposed, unless it was his intention to let it go forth to the public, that the committee had been entrapped into this vote by a certain promise, without which they would not have consented to accede to it. On that account he could not acquiesce in the amendment. Besides, he wished to put it to the committee, whether the duke of Cumberland, with a knowledge of what had passed, would risk the loss of this grant by educating his son abroad. Even if the royal duke should determine to educate the young prince on the continent, parliament would at all times hold in its hand the means of recalling him to his duty. It could either address the Crown to withhold the grant, or repeal the bill by which it was placed at the Crown's disposal.
Mr. Crippssaid, that in proposing the amendment, he had no intention to treat the pledge which the right hon. gentlemen had offered with any disrespect. As far as they were concerned he had no doubt that it would be religiously redeemed; but at the same time he must say, that if he were a minister of the Crown, he should be glad to have the words inserted in the resolution.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, he would not support the amendment, if he thought it implied any doubt in the sincerity of the ministers; but he should like to know what security the House had, that the present administration would keep their places, or that their successors would follow in their footsteps? If some future House should be disposed to act upon this subject, where in the journals would they find any record of the assurances of the present administration? If the amendment was not carried, the pledge now given to the House would not be recorded at all, and could not in future be acted upon, if the present administration should be dissolved. He should therefore support the amendment.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, he would vote for this grant unfetterred by any condition, on the ground, that the augmentation
924
which it made to the income of the royal duke would enable him to return and live in this country.
Lord Binningsaid, that the amendment implied a want of confidence either in the government, or in the duke of Cumberland. If it were carried, there would be no possibility of the young prince ever going out of Great Britain; and he thought no such condition should be imposed
Sir J. Newportsaid, he placed great confidence in the pledge offered by ministers; but could not see any reason why they should refuse to accede to the amendment. He would not consent to make the slightest augmentation to the income of the duke of Cumberland, without a distinct pledge that his child should receive a perfectly British education. Ministers were able to give pledges for themselves; but what right had they to do so for the duke of Cumberland It was said, that there was no intention to sever the child from the parent; and yet they had not been told that the duke intended to return home. Combining these two circumstances together, it appeared to him that the education of the child must necessarily take place abroad. He therefore wished to have some entry on the journals descriptive of the circumstances under which this vote was given.
Mr. Huskissoncould not support the amendment, He contended, that as the prince of Cumberland was not far removed from the Throne, and as he might one day sit upon it, his education ought to be provided for accordingly. If the amendment were agreed to, it would become part of the law of the land, and the young prince could not he removed for any purpose from the country without the leave of parliament. If he left England, the officers of the Exchequer would be no longer justified in paying to his father any part of his allowance. Now, suppose it were thought advisable at some future period to send this prince abroad, either for his health, the benefit of his education, or for fleshing his maiden sword on the enemies of his country. That object could not be accomplished if the amendment was agreed to. Parliament had au interest in watching over the manner in which the young prince was educated; but the parents had a greater. He thought the purpose of the grant would be adhered to without the amendment; which was adding an unnecessary restriction.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he was prepared to give his confidence to the present chancellor of the Exchequer; but as the right hon. gentleman could not pledge himself that six-months hence a " no-popery" administration might not be in existence, and as he would never place the slightest confidence in such an administration, he must look for some stronger security than the word of a minister liable to removal, that the prince of Cumberland should be educated in England. A new minister might say, "It is for the interest of the Crown to have this boy educated abroad. I know nothing of any pledge which my predecessors have given. I go by the letter of the act." The leader of a "no-popery" administration might, out of mere gratitude to the duke of Cumberland, be anxious to take such a course, if it were true, that he had been formerly instrumental in ousting an administration favourable to the Catholics. He must, therefore, to guard against such consequences, vote for the amendment: for, a "no-popery" administration he would trust with nothing. The object of the resolution was, not to vote a sum of money to the sovereign to educate the prince, but to vote it to the sovereign to enable the duke of Cumberland to do so. He would vote that money with pleasure to the king; but on no account would he vote it to the king for the duke of Cumberland to dole it out as he chose for the education of his son. It was worthy the representatives of a great nation to see how the education of its future princes was conducted; but the present resolution would reduce the Crown into a mere conduit-pipe to supply the duke of Cumberland with money professedly for the education of his son, but really and truly for his own expenditure. He would trust to a resolution of the House; but he could not, and he would not, trust to the duke of Cumberland. That royal personage had not the confidence either of the House or of the country. He would not go back into any distant recollections of his conduct. The royal duke stood now in the same situation as he did in 1815. He had done nothing to alter the opinion parliament then entertained of him. All the ministers had abstained from saying that he had. They would not give him the money; they gave it for the education of the prince. It was intended, however, for the duke. Had it been asked in his name, ministers knew they would not
926
have obtained the sanction of parliament., To spew that it was really intended for him, he begged the House to observe, that the duke had now 19,000 l. a-year; the duchess of Kent only 6,000 l., and they were both to have an additional 6,000 l., making the income of the duchess12,000 l., and of the duke 25,000 l. But was not the duke quite as well able to educate his son on the 19,000 l. as the duchess of Kent her daughter on 12,000 l., and this child nearer the throne than the duke's son? The duke might not return to the country where he drew his breath, and whence he draws his revenue. It was probable that he wished to remain abroad; and he (Dr. L.) would not give one shilling to bring him back. He would vote for the grant, if it secured the education of the prince in Great Britain.
Mr. T. Wilsonthought it ought to be fixed determinately how the money was to be spent, and where, or they would stultify their votes in 1815 and 1818. He must support the amendment.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had opposed the grant in 1815, and in 1818, and as he meant to vote for the present resolution, he wished to show that there was no inconsistency in the two votes. On the former occasions it was stated that the duke had no children, and that a larger income might be necessary if he had any. He thought the House was only redeeming the pledge thus given by now voting a sum for the education of the young prince. He objected to the amendment, as not giving the House one jot more security than they now had. It was not in their power to bind down their successors. He wished to see even the education of princes conducted under the eye of their parents. It was right that the Crown should be intrusted with a power of interference in cases where the parental authority was abused; but the exercise of it on this occasion appeared to him both unwise and unnecessary. After the debate of that night, could any man doubt that the education of this child would take place in England.
Mr. Warresupported the amendment, because there would otherwise be no security that this child would receive an English education.
Mr. Secretary Peelsuggested, that the object of securing the education of the child in England could be as well secured by inserting a declaratory sentence in the preamble of the bill, as by the proposed

927
amendment of the resolution, which would not be a respectful course to the Crown, as that resolution was an echo of the Royal message.
Mr. Calcraftcontended for the necessity of a clear understanding that the child should be educated in England.

List of the Minority.

Acland, sir T.

Lushington, W.

Allen, J. H.

Maberly, W. L.

Bailey, col.

Macdonald, James

Bent, J.

Martin, John

Benyon, B.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bernal, R.

Mildmay, P. S.

Bright, H.

Monck, J. B.

Brougham, H.

Newport, sir J.

Carter, John

Osborne, lord F.

Coke, T. W. jun.

Phillips, G.

Colburn, R.

Phillips, G. R.

Corbett, P.

Price, R.

Crompton, S.

Rice, T. S.

Denman, T.

Rickford, W.

Farrand, R.

Robinson, sir G.

Fergusson, sir R.

Townshend, lord C.

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Tulk, G. A.

Grant, J. P.

Scarlett, J.

Grattan, J.

Shelley, sir J.

Griffiths, J. W.

Smith, T. A.

Guise, sir W.

Stanley, E. G.

Heathcote, J. G.

Smith, W.

Heron, sir R.

Wemys, J.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Whitbread, S. C.

Ingleby, sir W.

Williams, J.

Knatchbull, sir E.

Wood, ald.

James, W.

Leader, W.

TELLER.

Lewis, W.

Hume, J.

The committee divided: For the amendment 64; Against it 79; Majority 15. The committee then divided on the original resolution. Ayes 105; Noes 55; Majority 50.

Judges' Salaries.
The report being recommitted, with an instruction to make provision for retired allowances, the chancellor of the Exchequer moved the first resolution, "That the several nett annual salaries herinafter mentioned shall be granted to the undermentioned justices of his majesty's courts at Westminster, in lieu of all salaries, fees, and emoluments, now received by them; and that there be issued and paid out of the consolidated fund of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, such sums as, with the sums now payable to the said justices respectively out of his majesty's civil list revenues, will make up to each of the said justices the sum hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, to the chief justice of the court of King's-bench, the nett annual salary of
928
10,000 l. to the chief justice of the court of Common Pleas, the nett annual salary of 8,000 l. to the chief baron of the court of Exchequer the nett annual salary of 7,000 l. and to each of the puisne justices of the courts of King's-bench or Common Pleas, or barons of the Coif of the court of Exchequer, the nett annual salary of 6,000 l."
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that, in his opinion, the House ought not to accede to the proposition because it was connected with a proposition for taking away the fees attached to the office of chief justice. The offices out of which those fees grew were incidental to the situation of chief justice, and had existed for centuries. It was from these that he derived the greater portion of his recompense, and of the legitimate reward of his labours. Chief justices had as much a vested right in these offices as any archbishop of Canterbury could have in the see which he had not yet become absolutely possessed of. If it were proposed, for instance, to make an alteration in the leases of that see, and to give the present possessor a smaller sum in lieu of the loss he might sustain, how much would it excite the disapprobation of that sacred profession. If an alteration were proposed, there should at least be a fair average of the loss sustained by it, and compensation to dint amount. But, what did they now propose to do? To increase the salaries of the puisne judges from 4, to 6,000 l. a-year, and while on the average of the last thirty or forty years, the salary and fee; of the chief justice amounted to between 14, and 15,000 l. a-year, to add only 1,000 l. to the lowest sum he received during any one of these years. This might be an advantage to the present chief justice, because it would give him a small increase to his present salary, he not being in a situation to participate in all the advantages derived from the disposal of the incidental offices; but, though he had had no communication with that respectable individual on this subject, he was sure that he was incapable of bartering any of the rights of his successors. It was unjust towards the chief justice to take away from him his fees, in order to Create a fund for the payment of the puisne judges. It was an admitted principle, that the chief justiceship of the court of King's-bench ought to be a place of great elevation, and dignity. Such was the feeling of the profession. To make it such, it should

929
be a situation of considerable emolument. The profession of the law was like a lottery. Its expenses always exceeded its profits just as the expenses of the tickets exceeded the value of the prizes. To make these situations the object of high spirit and ambition, they should be ones of emolument and dignity. Any step to degrade the high offices of chancellor or chief justice, was a step towards the degradation of the whole profession. Men of very considerable eminence would not be induced to give up a leading practice at the bar, for a salary barely equal, perhaps inferior, to the profits of their practice. The style of living must also be taken into the account. The profession lived very much together, and were rigorous critics towards each other, as to the rate and style of expense. A man of good practice might live in his own way, and make a very good figure with half his earnings. Not so with the chief justice, who was looked up to not only as head of the common law, but as one possessed of dignities and advantages becoming his high station. A man could accumulate less for his family as chief justice with 10,000 l. a-year, than a barrister could with the same sum acquired by practice. He was free to do as he liked in the latter case; in the former, he would be chained to hard labour for life; he would be condemned to tug at an iron oar, or if that were considered too harsh a description, at a gilded one. He would advise government by all means, if they wished to induce independent men of the best intellect and acquirements to accept that situation, not to reduce its consequence or pecuniary advantages, but to do every thing in their power to uphold the dignity of it. With that view he would take it out of the influence of the lord chancellor, whoever might happen to take that office. For his own part he did not see any disadvantage to the public on the promotion of the chief justice to the chancellorship. It was the duty of government to provide as many competitors of capability as they could, and the chief justice ought to be et liberty to offer himself. But, for that reason, the appointment of the chief justice should not lie with the lord chancellor. He could easily conceive a case—though, of course, it never yet did happen—of a lord chancellor taking care not to promote any persons to the bench except such as were notoriously too inferior to him-
930
self to threaten him with the danger of rivalry. To prevent this, the government ought to secure the appointment of the chief justice to themselves, taking care to bestow it on the very best man of their own party. The dignity and importance of the chief-justiceship could not be over, rated in this country so long as it was a land of liberty; and every measure that was adopted to lower its consequence, was a degradation to the profession. Upon these grounds he felt it his duty to propose, as an amendment—"That the sum of 12,000 l. be inserted, instead of 10,000 l." as he was well informed that the average of salary exceeded that sum.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully concurred in what had fallen from the learned gentleman, as to the inexpediency of any measure that went to diminish the importance of the chief-justiceship; and if his proposition could possibly lead to such a consequence, he would at once abandon it. But it appeared to him that the opinions of the learned gentleman rested on a fallacy; for he had argued as if there were some abstract rights attached to the office itself. He could easily understand the abstract rights of an individual in possession of the office, but he could not comprehend the nature of any supposed rights attaching to any future holder of the office. It appeared to him that we should look at no rights except those of the holder of the office, and then we should merely have to consider whether 10,000 l. a year would not be an adequate salary. With respect to the eminent individual now holding the office, his average salary, after all deductions, might be computed at 8,500 l., and he proposed to him an addition of 1,500 l. a year, which he considered an adequate compensation. He agreed in the propriety of having the first men in the profession to fill the office; and it was but reasonable to suppose that such men, previous to the attainment of that period when they would be qualified for the office, had acquired a considerable fortune. In addition to this, there was the honour, the distinction, and, he would add, the glory attendant upon the discharge of those high functions, which would operate as a much higher inducement to elevated minds than 2,000 l. a year. He, therefore, could not see how this proposition was shutting the door against eminent lawyers to fill the high judicial offices of the state.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, in answer to the argument respecting abstract rights, he would ask this question :—Take the case of the revenues of a bishop, and imagine it to be proposed, that the income of the successor of the present bishop should be diminished by 2,000 l. a year, would not a cry be immediately raised? If his opinion were asked what other mode ought to be adopted for increasing the importance of the chief justice, he would answer, by making him a peer. As the House of Lords had to decide in the last resort on our lives and liberties, it would not be amiss to have some good lawyers amongst them; and this would add considerably to his dignity. There was a period when chancellors and judges held their levees, and maintained their station with the highest splendor. Lord Mansfield invariably held levees; but, if a lord chief-justice could be found to ride down to court, or to travel, in a hackney-coach, with his train-bearer and another; or the lord chancellor with his mace in a hackney-coach, then, indeed, some saving might be made out of 10,000 l. a year. He would have the office of so high importance, that the first nobleman in the land would feel his son honoured by his elevation to it. But, he should infinitely prefer leaving the income of chief-justice as it was, to adopting the proposed arrangement.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that his mind was relieved when he found it admitted that they were not dealing harshly with the present chief-justice, for the main consideration when dealing with vested interests should be a provision for the losses the individual might sustain. It therefore appeared to him that they were now at perfect liberty to consider what ought to be the proper salary of future judges. He differed from the learned gentleman in thinking that this measure was objectionable in principle. He thought it better that the judges should have a fixed salary out of a fixed fund, than an uncertain salary out of uncertain and fluctuating fees. It was upon the same principle that the salaries of the offices of state had been fixed.
The amendment was negatived, and the resolution agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would not discuss the question of the salaries of the puisne judges, until the report was presented.
Mr. Humeasked, whether it was in-
932
tended to abolish all the fees of inferior offices?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that one of his hon. and learned friends had prepared a bill upon the subject, founded on a report of the commissioners.
Mr. Humealso begged to know, whether it was intended to give the lord chancellor a fixed salary, instead of allowing him all his enormous and abominable fees? He saw no reason why the lord chancellor should form the only exception in this new and wholesome arrangement. His lordship derived pecuniary advantages from the very delays which he himself occasioned.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that it was not possible to undertake such a task before a report had been made on that part of the pending inquiry. He would take the liberty of stating, that the notions entertained regarding the amount fees and salary of the lord chancellor, were exaggerated to a most strange degree. His salary, charged upon the Post-office, was only 5,000 l. per annum, while the average yearly amount of his fees did not exceed 7,000 l., making an income of 12,000 l. in the whole. The opinion abroad was, that the chancellor had a nett income of more than 20,000 l. a year; but, how much did the hon. gentleman suppose the lord chancellor actually put into his pocket? The salary of 5,000 l. was liable, first, to a reduction for the land-tax, and beyond that 2,500 l. was payable out of it to the vice-chancellor. The lord chancellor had himself disinterestedly suggested this mode of paying the vice-chancellor, In the whole, therefore, he did not put into his pocket more than 9,000 l. for the discharge of his laborious duties in Chancery. His fees., as Speaker of the House of Lords, might be between 3,000 l. and 1,000 l. a year, and his total income could not be more than 12,000 l. or 13,000 l. per annum. He did not apprehend that even the hon. gentleman would think the lord chancellor of England overpaid by such a sum. It might be very well to talk of delays and postponements; but thus much he would say for the present lord chancellor, that, as far as related to devotion of time and mind, and exertion of body, it was impossible for any man to exceed him. He said this, because it was a bare act of justice. When it was represented, over and over again, that the

933
lord chancellor was wallowing in wealth extracted from suitors, and derived in part from an inadequate discharge of duty, it became necessary to step forward to rescue so distinguished an individual from a most unmerited imputation [hear, hear!].
Mr. Humesaid, he would rather give the lord chancellor 15,000 l. a-year fixed salary, than allow him to be paid in the present absurd and objectionable manner. If a delusion existed as to the amount of the learned lord's emoluments (of which, by-the-by, he should require evidence before he believed it), the very way to keep it up was to allow the fees to remain unascertained. He was satisfied that he was not misinformed as to the enormous amount of the learned lord's emoluments. If mistakes of so gross a kind really existed, wily had not some means been taken effectually to remove them? It was supposed that the pecuniary advantages of the lord chancellor were not less than 18,000 l. a-year. He was not aware whether the fees on bankrupt commissions were or were not included in that amount; he believed that they were not, but the uncertainty skewed the necessity of inquiry. In some cases he had been informed that the lord chancellor regulated fees as he pleased, and thus incidentally was enabled to put money into his own pocket. Why then, when government were making this very proper reform in the other courts, was the court of Chancery to be omitted?
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that nothing could be more unfounded than the charge, that the lord chancellor had it in his power to regulate fees as he pleased, and thus put money into his own pocket. The accusation, that he derived pecuniary advantages from the postponement of causes was most calumnious. A more calumnious or groundless statement had never been hazarded. What pretence was there for it? Whence could the hon. member have derived his information?
Mr. Hume—So far from the attack being calumnious and groundless, I challenge the Solicitor-general to lay upon the table a return of the fees and emoluments of the lord chancellor, and I will prove the whole of what. I have asserted.
Mr. Twisshad no doubt that the hon. gentleman would be disappointed in the result, if the return were produced. He only rose to add one fact, of some import-
934
ance. The other side of the House delighted to dwell on the delays supposed to be occasioned by the lord chancellor; but his lordship, so far from desiring postponements, had some time since, to the diminution of his own salary, made a regulation to prevent them. The holidays formerly allowed in the offices of Chancery occasioned considerable delay; and his lordship had ordered that, with the exception of a very few days, they should be abolished: giving at the same time, out of his own funds, a remuneration to the officers thus injured. Thus his income was liable to a still further reduction, from his anxiety that no impediment should unnecessarily be thrown in the way of justice.
After some further conversation, the Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

KINGS MESSAGE RESPECTING DUCHESS OF KENT AND DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
The Earl of Liverpool observed, that he would trouble their lordships with only a few words on .his majesty's most gracious Message. He need not inform their lordships that the young princess, the daughter of the late duke of Kent,

899
had been left under the care of her mother under very peculiar circumstances, and that no provision had yet been made for her support. Their lordships were aware that the provision which had already been made for the duchess of Kent did not exceed 6,000 l. a-year, and that that provision had been made without reference to any issue she might have. He was sure their lordships would, therefore, readily concur in carrying into effect the recommendation of his majesty. There never was a person whose conduct had in all respects been more commendable than that of the duchess of Kent, since she came to this country. With respect to the other royal person for whose issue provision was proposed to be made, their lordships would recollect, that, since the present income of the duke of Cumberland had been settled, he had had a son, who was now about seven years of age. He was unwilling to advert to what had caused a difference of opinion on a former occasion, but though an increase of revenue had been granted to other branches of the royal family, the duke of Cumberland had received no addition to his income. Under these circumstances his majesty's ministers conceived that they were only doing their duty, when they recommended the sending down a message from his majesty to parliament, recommending, that provision should be made for the issue of the late duke of Kent and the duke of Cumberland. All that he had now to do was, to request that their lordships would agree to an address to the king, assuring his majesty that they would concur in carrying into effect that object of the recommendation contained in his gracious message. What would be proposed was, an addition of 6,000 l. a-year to the income of the duchess of Kent, and 6,000 l. a-year to the income of the duke of Cumberland.
The Earl of Darnleyexpressed his warm approbation of the proposed measure with respect to the duchess of Kent. He should do injustice to his feelings, if he refrained from declaring, that he considered her royal highness to afford an example of prudence and excellent conduct.
The motion was agreed to nem. dis.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
Lord Dacrerose to move the second reading of this bill.
The Earl of Lauderdalereminded the
900
noble lord, that an order had been made for hearing counsel for and against the bill.
Lord Dacresaid, he intended to oppose the hearing of counsel. The object of the bill was merely to enable a company to sue and be sued by one of their clerks; a portion of their capital being invested in a manner calculated to afford considerable relief to the poor. This being the object of the bill, he could not think that their lordships would consent to have their time taken up with hearing counsel on such a question. The Equitable Loan Company proposed to act as pawnbrokers, in a way most favourable to the interests of the poor. Surely this was not a point on which their lordships could think it necessary to hear counsel. No question of law was at issue, which required the learning of counsel to clear up. As the affairs of the company were now conducted, no legal objection could be made to their transactions. The company was formed in imitation of several very laudable institutions on the continent; and had been promoted by laudable men distinguished by their talents and attainments. He was sure there must be some interested motive at the bottom of the opposition which this had received. That opposition came from the pawnbrokers; and he thought this should operate with their lordships, as an argument, in favour of the bill. He should oppose the motion for calling in counsel.
The Earl of Lauderdalethought he had reason to complain of the conduct of his noble friend, in opposing the hearing of counsel. His noble friend had said, that he was not present when the order was made for hearing counsel; but he had been present since, and he might have made a motion for rescinding the order on any day. His noble friend had, however, waited until a number of noble lords were collected together on another question; and he thus expected to obtain a support for his present purpose, which he knew he otherwise could not have found. He reminded their lordships' that this company now presented themselves before them in the character of an illegal association. He contended, also, that the illegality of it had been already proved by the decision of a court of justice; and for this reason, he thought the House could not refuse to hear counsel.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as his own opinion on this subject had been

901
long formed, and that after mature deliberation, he had no wish to hear counsel; but, as his individual opinion happened to differ from those entertained by other noble lords, he was rather desirous that counsel should be heard. It was, true, that the decisions of some of the courts had been against the legality of this company; and this formed an additional reason why counsel should be heard. It was said, that in November, 1824, a deed had been entered into by this company, in which they disclaimed acting as a corporate body; but, he could not see how, by any such contrivance as this, that which was illegal before, could afterwards become legal. Whatever was done by the House, ought not to be adopted until after serious consideration. It was their lordships' duty to guard against the mischiefs which were likely to ensue from the conduct of these companies. During the last two or three years those mischiefs had been suffered to spread to a most dangerous extent. It was true that many persons were connected with .them, who were entitled to the greatest respect; but when it was stated that out of 40,000 shares of which this company consisted, all had been sold at a premium excepting 6,000, the public required some other security than the respectability, however great it, might be, of certain individuals. What was to be done in the country if such practices were to be continued? It was not enough for the company in question to say that they were not now acting as a corporation. And here he must say, he should have been very glad if the lower courts had defined exactly what was acting as a corporation; because, if, when acting under a deed, the parties concerned did the same things as they could do under a charter with the great seal annexed, he did not know what that assertion meant. For the satisfaction of their lordships, then, he wished that counsel should be called in, not for his own; for if they had nothing to allege beyond the deed, he should feel it to be his bounden duty to oppose the bill. If they had any thing beyond that to urge, and could satisfy him that the company would not do any corporate acts, then the bill should have his consent to pass. He was no foe to joint-stock companies if they were for proper purposes, and under due provisions. There were many great national objects which could be accomplished
902
by no other means, and which were fairly entitled to the privileges of a charter, or of an act of parliament. But, without such protection, nothing could be more foolish than to suppose that bills could be passed, only because they contained the clause, that the companies to which they related, might sue and be sued. Any lawyer would satisfy their lordships in ten minutes, that a more inefficacious and futile clause could not be inserted in a bill, and that nothing could be less of a security to the public. There was another circumstance which weighed with him considerably. It was this—that as the law was not now strong enough to compel the parties engaged in such undertakings to do justice among themselves, it was impossible that it could do justice between them and the public. The transactions of the Scotch commercial banks were all of this nature; and no man who thought of the inconveniences which might result from it would deny, that the law in this respect ought to be altered. While there was no dispute, the inconveniences could not arise; but when appeals should come from the courts of session, it would be found that all which had been done in the courts below must go for nothing. A more important case than this, whether it regarded the particular company now under discussion, or the general interests of the public, had not been before the House for many years. For this reason, he thought their lordships ought to hear counsel.
Their lordships then divided: For hearing Counsel 30; Against it 20. Counsel were then called in. Mr. Fonblanque addressed their lordships, against the bill; the Recorder of London followed, on the same side. After which the further discussion was postponed to Monday.