Sitting of 23 June 1828

SMALL DEBTS BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that since his return to office, no subject had occupied so much of his attention as this bill. Until lately he had hoped to be able to pass the bill into a law during the present session. That hope had now vanished;— but it was satisfactory to know, that the difficulties which opposed the passing of it were not connected with the principle of the measure. He would briefly state the circumstances which induced him not to attempt to pass the bill during the present session. If the bill were to pass, it must contain a clause for affording compensation to those holders of patent offices whose interests might be affected by it.— Nothing could be more disadvantageous to the public, than those partial compensations. Bills of this nature, whilst they diminished the emoluments of some patent offices, increased those of others. Then, when the latter came to be dealt with, the public were obliged to make compensation for the increased emoluments occasioned by previous reforms. Since the bill was introduced into the House, a commission had been appointed to inquire into the practice in the superior courts of law.—It was probable that the commission would suggest some plan for dealing with the patent offices generally. At all events he was disposed to wait until he could ascertain the intentions of the commissioners on that point. He thought it would be much more advantageous to consider the claims of the holders of patent offices altogether, than to go on making compensation by instalments. It was with great regret he saw that all the pains he had bestowed on the bill would he unavailing, so tar as regarded the present session; but he felt that he should be acting for the interests of the public to abandon the measure for the present.
After a short conversation, the bill was read a second time and committed for Friday.

MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONEY.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, he rose, in pursuance of his notice, to address the House on a subject which was deeply interesting to all who had any regard to the first principles of the constitution. The jealousy of the House with respect to the issue of Public Money was proved, by the records of parliament, to have existed as long as the parliament itself; and he needed not occupy the time of the House by any argument of his to vindicate the feelings which had given rise to that jealousy. He took it to be an established principle, that the House of Commons had a right to control the expenditure of public money, come in what shape and from what quarter it might into the hands of the executive government; and he boldly asserted, that any deviation from that principle and rule of conduct was a violation of the privileges of the House, and, on the part of the government, a censurable dereliction of its duty to the public. He had now had the honour of sitting nearly forty years in the House of Commons, and he had taken up this subject from a conviction that it was his duty not to overlook one of the most flagrant and daring violations of the privileges of parliament, which had taken place since the æra of the Revolution. The statements which he was then about to make arose out of the papers which had been laid upon their table. They arose, also, out of facts which had come to his knowledge from other quarters. He believed those facts to be true, and he challenged the government to contradict them. We must all recollect the unfortunate war which had so long distracted and desolated Europe, and which had burthened England with a load of debt, which was hourly consuming its energies. It had entailed lasting misery, he was afraid, upon the country; and from that war, and from its consequences, the present motion took its rise. At the close of that unfortunate war, it was found that many of the subjects of Great Britain had strong claims on the government of France for property which had been unjustly confiscated by it during the Revolution; and by the treaty of Paris, in May, 1814, it was stipulated, that the government of France should pay

1477
a certain sum of money into the hands of commissioners, to be appointed by the government of England, for the liquidation of the claims which might be made on it by British subjects. In pursuance of that stipulation, the 59th George 3rd, c. 31, was passed, by which commissioners were appointed to liquidate the claims of British subjects against the government of France. The object of their inquiry was clearly defined to them, and he believed that the commissioners acted as commissioners ought to act. The termination of one of the clauses of the above ran in this manner:—" In case all such claims are liquidated, for such other purposes as the said commissioners of the Treasury, or any three of them, may direct, the commissioners may apply them." The meaning of this was, that the surplus, if any, after the payment of all the claims, was to be paid in such way as the commissioners, or any three of them, might direct by their warrant. It so happened, that there was an act passed in the 6th of the king, enabling the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to apportion to certain purposes named therein, certain parts of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which, by the 4th of the king, were to be paid in future into the consolidated fund.— Now, the 6th of the king, inconsequence of the preparations which were making to build a palace at Buckingham-house, ordered the commissioners of Woods and Forests to pay over 70,000 l. a year to those who were intrusted with the superintendence of that work, and to apportion it to the buildings at Buckingham-palace alone, without paying any part of it to the consolidated fund. He believed that nearly the whole of this 70,000 l. was expended in the first year in building stables and in laying out gardens and shrubberies for the intended palace, and that only 27,000 l. was expended in building the palace. At the same time, he was ready to admit that, by the words of the act, whatever was placed to the account of refitting Buckingham-palace was legally entitled to be paid out of the proceeds of the hereditary revenue of the Crown. Tins took place in 1825, and in the commencement of the next year, arose the transaction, of which his public duty now compelled him to complain. And here he would observe, that it was his opinion, that if the deficiency of the funds assigned for the erection of the new palace had
1478
been stated to his majesty, he would have frankly stated it to his faithful Commons, and that his faithful Commons, if it had been fairly stated to them, would not have hesitated to make it good. The question, however, before the House, was not a question as to the erection of a palace, but a question distinctly apart from it. It was a question, whether the king's ministers had a right to dispose as they pleased of surplus revenue which had unexpectedly come into their hands, when parliament was sitting, and able to judge whether the issue of the money, for the purposes selected by ministers, was correct or not. Under such circumstances, he considered the measure which ministers had adopted to be a most censurable one. As parliament was sitting during the time that these issues were made, there could be no fear of any injury being occasioned by the delay which an application to Parliament might occasion. As the application might have been disposed of in a week, had ministers been inclined to make it, there could be no room for saying, that the progress of the building must be stopped, whilst the success of the application was still uncertain. Parliament ought to have been informed, that the funds assigned by the 6th of the king were insufficient for the purposes to which they were destined. Though 70,000 l. were to be paid annually, to defray the cost of Buckingham-palace, and were to be paid out of the revenues of the Woods and Forests, he believed that there was only one year in which that sum had been paid by the commissioners of Woods and Forests and that year was 1825. It had been said, that a right hon. friend of his, who was then the chief commissioner of Woods and Forests, had found himself, at the commencement of the year 1826, in a very unpleasant situation, in consequence of having the payment of large sums on account of this new palace demanded of him, and of having nothing wherewith to make it. His right hon. friend applied to lord Liverpool respecting the unhappy failure of the revenues of the Woods and Forests. At that meeting, were present the earl of Liverpool, Mr. Canning, Lord Goderich, and the present Master of the Mint. On the statement of his right hon. friend the chief commissioner was sent for, and asked, whether out of the money which he had received from the Treasury for the liquidation of the claims

1479
of British subjects against the government of France, there did not still remain a large proportion undisposed of. He replied, "I think we have about 300,000 l." —"Well, then," replied the Lords of the Treasury, "we'll dispose of it." Then there was a resort to two or three expedients. The first was a determination to get into their hands as soon as possible 100,000 l. To obtain that money, however, there must be a Treasury minute.— Now, if the papers on the table were correct, the Treasury minute was not signed till twenty days after the money was issued. This went a long way to show the object for which it was drawn up. After the money had been issued en the 10th to the commissioners of Woods and Forests, it was found necessary that there should be a Treasury minute drawn up, in order to enable the Treasury hereafter to recover the money. Now, what said the Treasury minute? "My lords, direct a warrant to be prepared, authorising the Commissioners of Arbitration, Liquidation, and Award out of the Exchequer bills in their possession, to pay over to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests the sum of 100,000 l., and which sum, together with the interest from the date of the bills to be delivered over, is to be repaid to them by the Commissioners of Woods when the repayment may be required." Now, if this fact had not come out by good fortune, how would the country have known any thing about it? It was in every respect a concealed loan, until the fact of its existence came out. The sum thus clandestinely disposed of was the largest sum that had ever been disposed of in the same manner by any government in England. He should be glad to know when the Treasury had received the power to grant, and when the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to accept, a loan in this manner. If it was a regular loan, when had the interest of it been paid, and to what account had it been carried? It would be a monstrous proposition for the government to say, 'As this is a surplus of money received from France, we have a right to dispose of it as we please." If five millions had been paid to the British government by the French for the purpose of satisfying the claims which our subjects had upon it, and if a surplus of 250,000 l. remained, it ought to have been issued, not under the control of the Treasury, but of the House of Commons. What control had the
1480
House had over these grants of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests?— None whatever. The return which had been made to his motion was carefully worded. The Treasury had sent in a return which it afterwards recalled; because it was not quite good enough for the purposes it was intended to answer. The return was amended in order to show that the lords of the Treasury had no other object in issuing their warrant but the public good; and therefore they wished to show that they had issued a part of it for the relief of the starving manufacturers. They saw that it was necessary to gild the pill which they were gulling the public to swallow. But what followed. When money is borrowed of the government it is borrowed by Exchequer bills. Now those gentlemen who formed the committee for the relief of the distressed manufacturers had repaid every shilling of the money which they had borrowed of the Treasury. The money had been advanced at different times to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Had they paid one farthing, or were they able to do so? The first sum of 100,000 l. was advanced to them by a Treasury warrant on the 10th of March, 1826—the further sum of 35,000 l. on the 8th February, 1827 —a further, sum of 100,000 l. on the 26th of March—and a still further sum of 15,000 l. on the 30th of June in the same year, and all on account of the works erecting at Buckingham-palace. Here we had 250,000 l. issued within two years as a loan to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests? When was the power to grant such a loan given to the Treasury by statute? They had no right to divert the funds which came into their hands for public purposes to such objects. But it was said, forsooth, that the advance of this sum will come into the triennial accounts given in by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Now those triennial accounts merely contained the receipts and disbursements of the hereditary revenues of the Crown; they had nothing to do with any adventitious funds which might be added to them from other quarters; and therefore this argument was a wretched subterfuge. He was almost ashamed to call the attention of the House to a fact so notorious as the jealousy exhibited by the House, at the granting of money by the ministers of the Crown, without the knowledge of parliament. It was neces-

1481
sary, however, to advert to one or two instances of it. The first was the case of sir E. Seymour. Sir E. Seymour was impeached, because he, being Treasurer of the Navy in May, 1680, did lend 90,000 l. out of the sum of 584,000 l. which had been voted for the support of the army, to other than the purposes for which it had been intended. Every one knew the purpose to which the money had been applied. The motion was got rid of by an amendment; but the reception of it showed that, even in those days, parliament was alive to the subject. On the 15th of May, 1711, a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the causes of the great increase of the public debt. A series of resolutions were passed by that committee. The third resolution was so strong, that he would read it," Resolved, that the application of any sum of unappropriated money, or surplusages of funds to uses not voted, or addressed for by parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and a violation of the privileges of this House." This resolution was passed in 1711 by the House upon taking a view of the situation in which the country had been placed, by the misapplication of the public money. In 1796, a case somewhat similar to the present occurred. Mr. Pitt might advance the plea of urgent necessity, to justify him in the step which he then took; but it was impossible that any such plea could be advanced in the present instance. Mr. Pitt was on this occasion attacked by Mr. Fox. He might have argued in his defence, that the country was then at war, and that he did not think it would be prudent to open the, concerns of the government to their enemies. But, how was the plea of necessity received by the House? It appeared, that Mr. Pitt had lent nearly 100,000 l. and other monies to the emperor, out of funds which had been voted for other purposes; and because he did so without the knowledge or consent of parliament, a vote of censure upon his conduct was moved by Mr. Fox, and upon that motion an amendment was proposed by Mr. Bragge. When Mr. Pitt opened his budget he obtained a vote of credit for 1,500,000 l. It afterwards turned out, that he had lent 200,000 l. of that money to the prince of Conde. Not a word, however, had been mentioned on the subject to the House at the time; but, towards the end of 1796, the misapplica-
1482
tion was discovered, and Mr. Fox arraigned what had been done. The city of London and the whole country became alive to the matter. Mr. Fox moved a vote of censure on the ministers. The thing had been done in the time of war, and the pica of necessity was put forward as its justification. But, would they be able to show that the appropriation of the public money in the present instance, was justifiable upon the plea of necessity? The next instance was one in which 40,000 l. had been advanced by Mr. Pitt to Boyd and Ben field. The matter was brought before parliament, and it was moved by Mr. Fox "That the advance of 40,000 l. for purposes other than the public purposes for which it had been voted by that House, being contrary to law, might, unless noticed by the House, be entertained as a precedent of a dangerous nature." That motion was considered in the light of a direct censure upon the ministers; and an amendment was moved to this effect, "That the advance being for the purpose of supporting a House under temporary difficulties, and whose support was connected with the financial affairs of the country, though not strictly according to law, might, under the circumstances, be justifiable." He could not wish for a more pointed introduction to his resolutions. The hon. member proceeded to observe, that lord Melville was not impeached so much for the various sums which had been misappropriated, as on account of having applied a particular sum of 10,000 l. to purposes foreign from those for which it had been intended: and for which, when called upon he would give no account. That transaction was found out by a commission of this House; and the present instance of misappropriation had been discovered by a select committee. He trusted, that whatever should become of his motion, the commissioners of Woods and Forests would be made to refund this sum. He protested, that a case of greater grievance to the state, and one which involved a more direct violation of the privileges of that House, had, in his opinion, never occurred; and he now called upon the House to show ministers that it should never occur again, by coming to an emphatic resolution on the subject. They had to determine whether that House had a right to know what was passing as to the expenditure of the public money. This money had been misap-

1483
plied by the government, in the face of an act of parliament. Perhaps it would be said, that it was an oversight; but why was it found out in the manner in which it was discovered? Why was it not stated to the House at the time; and why did not ministers ask for a bill of indemnity? The whole transaction was in direct opposition to the first principles of the British constitution. He would conclude by proposing two resolutions; one declaratory of the facts, the other a resolution copied from the Journals of the House in the year 1711. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That it appears from the papers laid upon the table of this House, that the commissioners of liquidation, arbitration, and deposit for the liquidation of the claims of British subjects, against the government of France, under the act of the 59th of George 3rd, cap. 31, did, at different times, by orders from the lords commissioners of the Treasury, pay over to the commissioners of Woods and Forests the following sums of money, that is to say 100,000 l. on the 10th March, 1826; 35,000 l. on the 8th February, 1827; 100,000 l. on the 26th March 1827; 15,000 l. on the 30th June, 1827; amounting altogether to the sum of 250,000 l., without any communication to this House, and without any vote or address of this House to authorize the same, though parliament was sitting at the time the said different sums were issued.
"Resolved,—That the application of any sum of unappropriated money, or surpluses of funds, to uses not voted or addressed for by parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and a violation of the privileges of this House."
Mr. Herriessaid, the reason why he ventured to present himself so early in the debate to the attention of the House, arose from the circumstance of the peculiar office which he held at the time having rendered him conversant with the transaction to which this motion had reference. It had been stated by the hon. member, with all that gravity which showed that he attached a deep importance to the question, that a transaction of more grievance to the subject, and in more direct violation of the privileges of parliament, had not occurred since the Revolution. If the subject were indeed of that nature, a heavy responsibility would attach to one individual, who, though still alive, was no longer in a condition to vindicate
1484
himself, and whose character would be gone for ever if the charge were well founded. The charge would fall with equal weight upon another individual, whom death had removed from the scene. The charge, in fact, would attach to the late Mr. Canning, to lord Liverpool, who could not defend themselves, and to lord Goderich, who could answer for himself. But, by bringing the real state of the case before the House, he hoped to be able to show that these statesmen were not open to this charge,—a charge which, if true, amounted to nothing more nor less than that of a misapplication of the public money, in violation of the principles of the constitution. This was not a question of the violation of a statute; it was a question involving the violation of those principles of the constitution which related to the appropriation of the public money. Before he proceeded further, it might be as well to remove the impression which an argument of the hon. gentleman's, founded upon those documents respecting the transaction, was calculated to make. The hon. gentleman had been unquestionably misled by an error in one of the documents laid before the House. According to the document on their table, it would appear that the money had been issued on the 10th of March, while the warrant bore date the 30th of March. From this it would appear, that the money had been given by the commissioners previous to the issuing of the warrant; and if that were the case, the observations of the hon. member on that part of the subject, would have been quite justifiable. But the whole of this seemingly extraordinary version of the transaction was attributable to the mistake of the clerk in putting the 10th of March for the 5th of April. The letter from the Treasury to the commissioners bore date the 31st of March. The warrant was made out on the 30th, and the issue of the money, which was thereby authorized, did not take place till the 5th of April. He trusted that this explanation had removed the impression made on the House by the statements of the hon. gentleman, in reference to this part of the transaction—He would now proceed with the facts of the case. In 1825, lord Goderich, then chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in a bill for the repairing and rebuilding of the public palaces, and of Buckingham-house in particular. At that time it was stated, that it was not possible

1485
to give a definite account of the amount of expenditure that would be required: 250,000 l. was the sum estimated, and a grant to that amount was passed. The grant was made out of the revenues arising from the Crown lands, which the Treasury was authorised to apply to that purpose. However, after the work had been some time in progress, it was found that these funds were inadequate to meet the expenses accruing. The various expenses incurred in the beautifying and improving of the parks, had been defrayed out of the revenues of the Crown lands, and their concurrence at this time with the expenses necessary for the erection of the palaces, pressed so heavily on these funds, that they were not sufficient for the latter purpose. It was under these circumstances that it was intimated to the lords of the Treasury, that the commissioners for liquidating the claims on France, after having made awards to all the claimants that had presented themselves, had then a sum in their hands after satisfying all the demands; and they left it to the lords of the Treasury to determine what was to be done with it. The first step of the lords of the Treasury was to take the opinion of the king's advocate. That learned individual stated it as his opinion, that the surplus, having been handed over, under the provisions of the act, to the Treasury, was at their disposal, and could be appropriated by them to whatever public purpose they considered best. The communication enclosing this opinion was made by the Secretary of State to the Treasury. It was on the receipt of that communication, that the meeting was held to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, and it was at that meeting, that the lords of the Treasury decided upon the matter, in concurrence with the Secretary of State. After all the claims had been adjudicated, the surplus of 250,000 l. still remained at the disposal of the lords of the Treasury; which they considered themselves warranted in appropriating to public purposes. In this appropriation, Mr. Canning, lord Liverpool, and lord Goderich concurred, and shared alike the responsibility. The balance so applied was not alienated, but employed on an object by which the public service was essentially promoted. What was done was done under the authority of parliament itself. They had equal authority for possessing and for appropriating the money as it was
1486
applied. The precedents alluded to by the hon. member ought to warrant a conclusion directly opposite to that which the hon. member would have them to infer. In 1711, the committee had conic to a resolution, "that the application of any sum of unappropriated money or surplusages of funds to uses not voted or addressed for by parliament, is a misapplication of the public money, and a violation of the privileges of that House." Did this precedent apply to the case before them? In all cases of supply, parliament restrains the application to specific purposes of government; but, in ways and means, money may be appropriated to any purposes sanctioned by a grant of parliament. In the case of Buckingham-house there was no restriction imposed, as a sufficient estimate of the expenses could not be made out. The amount, therefore, to which the hereditary revenues of the Crown might be applied was necessarily indefinite. The Treasury had merely anticipated the application of the funds. They anticipated what parliament granted; and following up that intention, they made application for raising the money which might not have come in time to defray the instant expenses. In 1827, the landed revenue in Ireland was borrowed for the same object. All indicated the same intention on the part of parliament; and the Treasury had acted all along on the same principle. The way in which they had managed was undoubtedly the cheapest, simplest, and most economical. It might be asked, why they had not come to parliament? To this he replied, that they could not ask parliament to grant other sums for this purpose, when money was placed already at their disposal by the authority of parliament. That authority they had distinctly received from parliament in three several ways. Could the noble persons who were so inconsiderately accused, come down to the House and ask for other funds than those which were already at their disposal? He was quite at a loss to know on what principle such a suggestion could be laid down. As he was himself a party in the execution of this act, he had risen to defend it; admitting that if any censure, were to be attached to it, it would as properly fall upon himself as on any other person. He could not acknowledge the alleged violation of the constitution, where what was done was in furtherance of the express intention of parliament. He would

1487
give an emphatic denial to the truth of the hon. member's inference from the determination of the Treasury to interfere for the relief of the distressed manufacturers in 1826. In reference to this measure the hon. member had said, that the Treasury thought it necessary to "gild the pill," in order to reconcile the people of England to an extravagance so unpalateable. This implied a suspicion, that the Treasury had abused public feeling, and got up this as a cover for a culpable and dishonest prodigality. Was it to be believed that the hon. member for Midhurst could be implicated in such a conspiracy to trick the public? He should now leave the subject to others better able than he was to enter into a discussion of the constitutional point which it was supposed to involve. Satisfied that the conduct of the several governments had been strictly legal, and ministerially correct—that in every particular they had been actuated only by a sincere desire for the interest of the public, and had proceeded upon honest, upright and conscientious motives, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. Baringsaid, that, having been occupied for some time in the finance committee, he thought it right, in the absence of the hon. chairman, to put the House in possession of the veal facts of the case. Although the hon. member for Durham had already so fully stated them, they had yet been so changed and turned about by the tortuous speech of the right hon. gentleman, that the House might be presumed scarcely to know the real undisguised truth on which they were to form their decision. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman, who would have them to depart thence without deeming it their duty to take any notice whatever of the subject. In a case like this, where the character and dignity of the House were concerned, they should not assume, upon the word of any individual, that government had been guilty of no improper conduct. The right hon. gentleman appeared to follow a rather extraordinary course respecting this question, as when it was canvassed in the finance committee, he had admitted, that "it was certainly rather irregular." He also said, if his memory did not deceive him, "he wished it had been otherwise." In reply, he remembered to have himself said, that as irregularity was acknowledged, it was their duty to investigate, whether some
1488
stronger term was not applicable. He had been one of those who objected to making it a subject of examination in the committee, as he felt that, in the early part of their proceedings, it would be better to avoid all topics of a personal nature, which were likely to be agitated as matters of public scandal. He had felt the importance of not mixing up such questions with their labours, as they might tend to embarrass and derange them.—Others had suggested, that they should make it a subject of a special report. But as the actors were out of the way, it appeared more advisable to defer the subject until they should come to the particular department to which it properly belonged; and he had even drawn up the precise form of words in which he wished it to be spoken of. It was intended to be any thing rather than a personal question. There was no desire to criminate any individuals; nor did it so affect any of the present cabinet. He did not impute to the individuals who had so misapplied this money, the intending any great violation of the constitution, but of having been guilty of great carelessness, and most decidedly, under the circumstances, with having violated the privileges of the House. This they had done; and the House could not stop on the threshold of such a discovery, and negative the performance of their highest constitutional duty. The present motion was not meant to produce any effect upon an administration; it implied no serious reflection even on the character of individuals; nevertheless it was a case which, when once brought under the view of parliament, they must be lost to every sense of their own character, if they hesitated to assert their legitimate control over the application of the public expenditure. If things like these were to be passed over unnoticed, that House must consent to pass for nothing in the public eye, and be prepared to sink into insignificance.— Now, what were the facts of this case?— The right hon. gentleman stated, what indeed was true, that 250,000 l. had been advanced from the fund for French claims, to enable the commissioners of the land revenues, to defray an advanced expenditure for the improvement and repairs of Buckingham-house; and the application of lord Goderich in 1825, was founded upon an estimate, that 200,000 l. would be necessary to complete these repaint and im-

1489
provements. Yet, what was the fact?—That now, in 1828, the improvements were not finished, It was natural that the crown revenues should be charged with these expenses; but it was worth observing, that their application was fenced round by regulations and acts of parliament for the purpose of preventing abuse; but, in no single provision of all these was there any recognition, by a minute, by a syllable of explanatory averment, of the power exercised by the Treasury in this case, of taking the money out of the fund for French claimants. How had this Buckingham-house estimate gone on?— Parliament, in the first place, advanced 200,000 l. upon an estimate that that sum would suffice. They, however, had made little progress in the work, when it became obvious that parliament had been deceived, and that the first grant had been made use of like a wedge, to make a lodgment for a deeper impression on the public purse, and that instead of 200,000 l., 500,000 l. would not finish the building. Having embarked in this expense, the government were bound to have come before parliament, and stated how the matter stood. Instead of taking that legitimate course, they laid their hands on this money of the commissioners for French claims. Here he was quite ready to admit, that this unappropriated sum was in a state to be dealt with by the Treasury; it was originally destined to meet the claims under the French convention, and if a surplus remained, it was, he knew, at the disposal of the Treasury "for other purposes." But, he would ask, what was the meaning of parliament putting money at the disposal of the Treasury? Was it not to secure its legitimate appropriation for the public service, and under due accountability to the House of Commons? When this money was clandestinely given, parliament was sitting. Why not then have made a return of it? Why not in 1827, or before 1828, when the thing must come out before one or both of the committees of finance, or public repairs? The irregularity was in this misapplication of public money, without first obtaining legitimate consent. No mention of it had there been until the third session after the money was surreptitiously obtained.—Had it been given to the army, navy, or miscellaneous services, it would not have been half so bad as giving it into a blind fund like the Woods and Forests, which
1490
only rendered accounts once in three years. He had never been niggardly in looking at the expenses of the Royal palaces. All he meant to say was, that the people had a right to be consulted in the application of a grant of money of this nature. It was quite impossible, upon such a statement of facts, that the House could consent to be dragged through the dirt, by not taking notice of such a transaction as this. He was glad, at all events, that this motion was to be met by a positive negative; for such a course would enable those who valued their rights, and held sacred their duty, to vindicate both, by the record of their votes, when so gross an attempt was made to set aside their constitutional functions.
Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that the hon. mover had, from an imperfect knowledge of the facts, misrepresented his part of this transaction. He remembered the matter began thus:—One morning he was with lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning, when a question was put to Mr. M'Kenzie, one of the commissioners for French claims, when that gentleman explained, that 500,000 l. remained, and he added his conviction, that not half that amount would be wanted for the reduction of the demands on the office. It was then observed by lord Liverpool, that as the repairs of Buckingham-palace had gone on with a rapidity beyond the means at hand of meeting the disbursements, it would be better to make an advance of this surplus balance to the Woods and Forests—that it should be a temporary advance, not a permanent loan, and to be repaid when called for by the Treasury, with interest. He could not agree with the hon. gentleman who spoke last, that the lords of the Treasury had not the power of making this temporary application of the money, for they were, on the face of their appointments, justified in applying it "to other purposes." The only blame which had been thrown upon them was for a concealment of the transaction. He confessed it would have been better if the advance had been made known to parliament; but it was at the same time due to the office of Woods and Forests, to declare that their accounts were open, explicit, and correct; and his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had, he believed, once invited the hon. member for Aberdeen to examine their books and papers, and inform himself of all their transactions. Indeed, he would find other advances in their books

1491
for the public service. In consequence of the great works in Regent-street, 300,000 l. had been borrowed from the Royal Exchange, and an equal sum from the Bank of England; 100,000 l. had also been advanced by the Treasury out of the consolidated fund, to enable the Woods and Forests to make particular repayments. All the branches of the department were open to the public eye; and he, while in the office, had regularly kept a balance-sheet, and should next year have had to explain this very transaction, had he remained at the head of the department. With respect to the footing on which the land revenue stood, he hoped they would allow him to remark, that on the death of king William, the nett revenue of the Crown lands was under 500 l. a year. At the commencement of the reign of George 3rd it amounted to 10,000 l. a year; and now, after all the great public works they had executed, and the cultivation of from thirty thousand to forty thousand acres of land, for providing a good supply of timber for the navy, which had saved, since 1794, nearly one million sterling, their land revenue produced, exclusive of Ireland, 150,000 l. a year.
Lord Howicksaid, that lord Goderich had expressly called for the original grant for Buckingham-house, "for repairs and fitment;" and when he called for 200,000 l., he gave a pledge, that the sum should not be exceeded by the expenditure, and yet what was the fact? Why, that 432,000 l. had been laid out on the building, without one shilling for furniture. Had or had not that expenditure received the sanction of parliament? for that was the sole question before them. And when the right hon. gentleman referred to 1794, why did he overlook the precedent of 1796, in the memorable debates which took place upon the vote of credit. Mr. Pitt then said, "As to the vote of credit, I conceive it to be a privilege granted to his majesty's ministers to employ a given sum to any such purpose as the exigency of affairs shall require;" but he afterwards added, "Have I said, that because a vote of credit is applicable to every public service, there is no question of responsibility? Have I said there is no principle of respect, of attention, of deference to parliament?" What deference or respect had been shown to parliament in this case? They had heard, indeed, that because the 200,000 l. first voted as a sum
1492
for the whole, had been despatched with "unexampled rapidity," it became necessary to cast away a much larger sum, without parliamentary notice. Wow Mr. Pitt, with respect to the emperor's loan, had I said, "The vote of credit bill of last year invests the executive government with the discretionary power of applying the sums granted in the manner that may best suit the public exigencies, and the money applied to the service of the emperor is within the amount of the grant.'' But Mr. Pitt had added, "I do not mean to say that the discretion thus vested is absolute and independent of the control of parliament, or that the minister who exercises it in an improper manner is exempted from; censure." He goes on to say, "I will admit that if, at the time of using a vote of credit, ministers foresee any expenditure which appears likely to be of consequence, either with respect to its amount or the importance or peculiarity of the subject, if it admits of a precise estimate, and if the subject is of such a nature that it can be divulged without injury to the public, I should readily admit, that the minister would fail in his duty to parliament, that he would not act according to the sound principles of the constitution, if he were not to state the nature of the emergency, and endeavour to estimate the expense; but if, from the nature of the expense, it should be impolitic to divulge it, in that case I conceive the minister to be justified who conceals it from parliament till a future season." Such was the language of Mr. Pitt. What inconvenience could have followed the disclosure of this expenditure, on the present occasion? Had there not been resolutions after resolutions by that House, directing that no public work should be carried on without a proper estimate being laid before them? What greater censure could be pronounced on the late transaction, than that which was conveyed in these declarations of Mr. Pitt? On the whole, he implored parliament to exercise their functions as became them on such an occasion.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the present question had been brought forward most irregularly. His hon. friend who had introduced it had, with his usual talent for detail, ransacked every source of information, and brought every thing, both from the records of the House and elsewhere, that could in any way assist his views, or be analogous to the case which he sup-

1493
posed he had made out. With respect to the case of Mr. Seymour, it was not at all in point. Parliament, in that instance, had granted a certain sum of money for the use of the navy, and it was ultimately applied to another department of the state. Then came the case in 1711, which was equally foreign to the present inquiry. But even if it were otherwise, these sums were all voted by parliament, while the fund, which was now the subject of debate, was not created by parliament, nor had it ever been in his majesty's Exchequer. It arose, he contended, out of one of those casual funds, of the same nature as droits, which were created from time to time, and over which the House could exercise no direct control. If it had not been for the act of the late king assuming that all the claims upon this ground were satisfied, the surplus would be precisely of the same character as droits; and had the Crown applied the fund in question as droits, ministers would not now be accountable for it. He repeated, that if the act of the 59th of the late king had not passed at all, every objection, both legal and constitutional, and also every claim upon the fund, would have been satisfied. All that would be necessary would be, for the ministers of the Crown to lay upon the table of the House an account of the manner in which the fund had been applied. He contended that there had been no misappropriation of money in the present instance, and he would willingly try the question on its merits, and let it be judged either by politicians or lawyers, or by that which perhaps would be found as good a criterion as either, by the common sense of the public, whether this sum was not in the light of droits. He contended, that the act of the 59th of the late king gave no direction for laying a statement before parliament of the manner in which funds which were raised and applied in the manner of this fund, had been appropriated. As the case stood, however, he had this to say, that no departure had been made from the strict letter of the law. With respect to another objection, that the residue of this money had not been applied to the purpose for which it was originally intended, had the omission in the act of parliament not occurred, no objection of this nature could have been taken. At the beginning of the seven years' war, orders were given to the king's ships, that all French vessels should be seized and
1494
brought into British ports as prisoners of war. Accordingly, the order being fulfilled, all those vessels were sold, and the profits applied to the Crown. Now, what was done with this money? Why, it was lent every year to one or other of the services connected with the state, and it was again repaid by them. At the end of the war what became of this money? It happened that France, owing to her peculiar situation with reference to this country, called upon us to repay it, and we did so. This, he conceived, was a case perfectly analogous; yet hon. gentlemen would make the House believe that the fund, which was the subject of the present debate, was still liable to any claims that might be made upon it. He contended, that it could not now be applied to any public purpose. The whole sum and substance of the matter resolved itself into this, that the money in question was a loan, and as such it was impossible that it could be accounted for as if it were a grant of parliament. It appeared that, in 1825, the House granted a sum of money for repairs and improvements at Buckingham-house. Those repairs and improvements went on more rapidly than it was at first expected, and there being a fund dormant, which was perfectly within the power of the Crown to appropriate, his majesty's ministers, seeing that the parliamentary grant was insufficient, thought fit to apply to this dormant fund by way of a loan, for the purpose of carrying on the building. This was the simple statement of the case, and he begged the House to bear in mind, that this fund was not originally voted by parliament, but was solely under the control and at the disposal of the Crown, and until its final disposal the Crown might lend it.—But there were other cases as much in point. Every gentleman was aware of the erection of the new Mews at Pimlico for his majesty's stabling. Now, the fund by means of which that building was erected arose from a loan from the droits. He could state other instances equally applicable; but he considered it unnecessary to do so. Taking this view of the question, he was led to believe that his right hon. friend (Mr. Herries) had, through inadvertence, put a negative upon the first resolution. He would not directly oppose that first motion, but the second, he was prepared, with his right hon. friend, to negative; and with respect to the first, he should vote for the previous question.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that notwithstanding the ingenious and cautious speech of his right hon. friend, he should not be doing his duty if he did not say, that he considered the whole conduct of ministers, with respect to this transaction, as mean, shuffling, and underhanded. If he objected to the misappropriation of the fund in question, it was not from any want of respect to the distinguished individuals concerned in it. He regretted, indeed, that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Herries) had thought it necessary for his case, to bring forward their names; appealing, as it were, to their immediate friends to deal lightly with the present charge, in consideration of the part which they had taken in it. Up to the present moment, no account had been laid before parliament of the sums expended in the erection of Buckingham-palace. It appeared, however, that the whole amount expended by the Woods and Forests upon that building, was only 27,000 l.; and yet the ground for the application of the large sum which was now the subject of inquiry was the extraordinary pressure on the Woods and Forests. Yet the Woods and Forests were in the avowed receipt of 70,000 l. per annum. Now, as to the application of the fund. One right hon. gentleman called it an appropriation, another called it a loan, and a third a droit of the Crown; but, whatever name it was to be known by, no account had been laid before parliament with regard to its appropriation. His right hon. friend said, that there was no mention in the act of parliament, as to the disposal of this fund. There certainly was not; but it ought not, at all events, be left to the disposal of the lords of the Treasury; or if so, it would surely be a disgrace to them, that ministers of the Crown should be so shackled and tied down. As honest men and upright ministers, they ought to be enabled to render an account, without the intervention of an act of parliament. No man, let his political feelings be what they might, could lay his hand upon his heart and say, that this was not a misappropriation of the public money. If it was to be considered merely in the light of a loan, where were the words in the act, that empowered the Woods and Forests to borrow? And where, again, was the clause that empowered them to lend money which they so borrowed? It was a proceeding utterly unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the practice of parlia-
1496
ment. It was scarcely going too far to say, that the defence was disingenuous, shuffling, and underhanded.
Mr. Secretary Peelwished, laying aside all technicalities, to come to the inquiry, whether the transaction alluded to was an abuse of such a nature as to call for the public censure of two individuals, who were no longer in a condition to defend themselves; and he believed that upon such an inquiry, so conducted, their conduct would appear to be perfectly innocent in granting the warrants for the application of the money, which they never thought could involve them in any charge of illegal or unconstitutional conduct. He could undertake to show, that the course which they had adopted was warranted by act of parliament, and that if any blame attached to them, it also attached to that House. The main question was, whether they had a legal power to do as they had done, or whether, having that power, it was still, though legal, so unconstitutional in its nature and bearing, as to require to be marked by the displeasure of that House. He could not disconnect that transaction from the period of the treaty of Paris, and he only wished that those who opposed the measure so much, would refer to the debates of 1816. There they would find that, in consequence of the triumphant issue of the war, this country had become possessed of three different sums of money from France. The first was 700,000 l. in the nature of booty; the second was a still larger sum, to indemnify this country for the expenses of the war; and the third was money granted for nearly the same purpose. Yet, out of these sums, money was applied to pay the army in France, without any act of parliament to justify the application. The first sum, it was true, had been considered in the nature of booty, and upon that ground the application was defended. The second sum, which amounted to one million, was appropriated to reward the British army. How, then, could he, with these facts be-: fore his eyes, agree to the resolution of the hon. gentleman, which declared such acts to be not only illegal, but contrary to the practice of parliament? In the debates which had taken place at that period, the eminent member for Knaresborough had moved a resolution, stating that the application of such sums had a tendency to impair the rights of that House. The attention of the House had thus been called

1497
to the subject, but how was the motion disposed of? The previous question was moved upon it, and carried without a division. Was it fair, after that, for the House to turn round upon its own decision and say, that there was enough in the present case to justify them in passing a vote of censure? He would show, that the Crown had not applied the money without the consent of parliament. The third fund was, he would admit, of a special description: it was to liquidate the claims incurred by the losses of individuals. But, before they consented to pass a censure upon the two individuals to whom he had alluded, and upon a noble lord since called to the other House, he would ask them well to weigh the terms of the act of parliament. Comparing the money to which the question referred with the other funds derived from France, he believed, in his conscience, that it was intended to be left at the disposal of the Treasury. The disposal of a sum of 400,000 l. obtained from the East India Company was conducted in the same spirit. It was ordered to be paid into the Exchequer, in order to be disposed of by parliament. Was not this distinction, then, plainly admitted by this act? And was it not possible, that honest and well-intentioned ministers might think of applying the money in question, without considering that they had committed themselves in any unconstitutional proceeding? Never, until a doubt could be entertained as to the purity of their motives, would he become a party to any measure which would fix a stigma upon their names. He would admit that, if the transaction were to be done over again, it would be worth the while of parliament to see that it should not be repeated. But, while he admitted that, could he agree to such a resolution as the present, without any consideration of the motives of the men, without any reference to their characters, and without any allowance for the hurry of business and the perplexity of state affairs? He had no objection, far from it, to take a security for the future. But the real question was, what was the motive, what the intention, upon which they had acted? They knew that a triennial report of the Woods and Forests would be made, and that, in that report, the application of the sum would appear. He had no objection that the triennial report should be changed to a yearly report. It would give a security against the appro-
1498
priation of any sums without the knowledge of parliament. But, while he might be inclined to be of that opinion, was he, if in the finance committee he had admitted that the transaction was inadvertent or negligent, when he came within the walls of that House to be reminded of that admission, and to be told, that he was therefore bound to vote for the censure proposed by the hon. gentleman? He would not, under such circumstances, concur in a censure on men removed from all connection with public affairs, and who could not explain the motives by which they had been actuated. He was quite ready to allow, if an imperative duty called upon the House to visit any public conduct with censure, that then no consideration of the death of one party, or of the calamity which afflicted the other, ought to interfere with the rigid performance of that duty. The death of the one, or the affliction of the other, would not, in such a case, be the shield with which he should seek to defend them. What he maintained was, that the present was not a case for censure. But even if he were of a contrary opinion, he never should perform any public duty with feelings of so much pain, as those with which he should censure a lamented individual, whose principles and talents had been so unequivocally recognised in that very session, or approach with any other feeling than deep respect—he had almost said the memory of a noble lord, who, in the event of a rigid sense of public duty demanding a parliamentary censure on his conduct, might, at a moment when his calamity pressed upon him with less urgency, wake to the consciousness, that the only notice I which that House had taken of his long course of eminent public services was to censure him, because, having erroneously read the 31st chapter of the 59th Geo. 3, he had applied 250,000 l. to a public service, under that erroneous interpretation. He repeated, that he should never perform; any public duty so reluctantly as to agree to such a censure on lord Liverpool, if that were to be the only notice which the House of Commons were to take of that noble lord's public conduct.
Lord John Russellcomplained, that the right hon. gentleman had attempted to enlist the feelings of the House in favour of distinguished individuals, to the neglect of those higher and more solemn duties which they owed the constitution. But it

1499
was because those ministers were respected, that they should not allow a precedent to slip in, under their names, which was injurious to the rights of the people. With respect to the defence set up for that appriation, by a reference to the disposal of the sums received from France, it was stated in the act, that the sum was at the disposal of the lords of the Treasury. The right hon. member for Liverpool had attempted to take advantage of another feeling, by stating that they ought to provide a palace, and support the dignity of the Crown. If that were the question, he should be as willing as any man to give it his support; but when they saw such sums applied to the building of palaces without an act of parliament, it was time they should look about them, and appeal to the House of Commons to vindicate their own character in the eyes of the public.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that although the subject had been already discussed in such a manner as to exhaust every topic of argument, he could not allow it to go to a division, without offering a few words to the House. And here, at the outset, he could not avoid joining his noble friend in his complaint, that an attempt had been made to take advantage of their feelings, by the introduction of topics partly of a private, partly of a political, and partly of a constitutional nature. There could be no doubt but that the tendency, if not the desire, with which these topics were introduced, was to prevent the members of that House from performing the paramount duty which they owed to the people. He was unwilling to utter any expression which could be interpreted into a censure of one whose loss he greatly deplored. As much did he feel unwilling to censure a noble lord, who was prevented by calamity from defending his own conduct; or another noble lord who was alive but called to another place, and whose policy for the last four or five years had his decided approbation. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the slips and inadvertencies of public men, but they were slips and inadvertencies through which the public had become losers. Should it be considered as a loan? He was afraid it partook more of the nature of a gift. He did not approve of all the words of his hon. friend's motion; but so far as they went to denounce the appli-
1500
cation of the money, they had his entire concurrence. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last, had carried their attention to the sum of 700,000 l. which was of the nature of a booty. The next, which was a larger sum, was of the same nature also. But whether or not, they were of the nature of droits, and he would take it on the right hon. gentleman's own case, that parliament had not interfered with them at all. They had another case, however, with an act of parliament attached, declaring that it should be employed for public purposes, and at the discretion of parliament. But, was it because parliament had thought proper to legislate in one case, that ministers should make the application themselves, without any act to countenance their proceeding? Those to whom public money was intrusted for specific purposes were placed in the situation of trustees for the public: they were bound to account to the country for the way in which that money was expended: they were bound, when an appropriation of that money was contemplated, to bring it at once before parliament, by way of estimate. The right hon. member for Liverpool had treated the money which had been thus appropriated as a droit; but if it were a droit, an account of its appropriation must be laid before parliament. Now, with respect to these droits, it had been found necessary to have an act of parliament passed to compel the ministers of the Crown to lay before parliament an account of the appropriation of these funds; and it was just because this money was not a droit, that the act contained no words that had any reference to property so acquired. In point of fact, it was a public fund, placed under the control of particular officers, and parliament had an undoubted right to be made acquainted with the manner in which it was applied. —But it was said, that no mischief had arisen, or could arise, from the appropriation of money in this way. Could any man suppose, that when, in addition to 70,000 l. the revenue of the Woods and Forests in one year, a sum of 250,000 l. was ready to be appropriated, such facilities had not the effect of creating a much more lavish expenditure of money than could, under other circumstances, have been resorted to? Enough appeared, in the course of this transaction, to give rise to the most pregnant suspicion,

1501
that money had been lavishly squandered, which would not have been so employed, had it not been for the application of those funds which were at the disposal of the Treasury; funds, which ought to have been accounted for to parliament, instead of being dissipated in this extravagant manner. He did not mean to say, that the course which had been taken was adopted for the purpose of concealment; but when they found that the circumstance was not discovered for two years after, and that accidentally by the Finance Committee, they had a right to believe that there existed no intention amongst the parties, to bring the subject before parliament. There might or there might not have been concealment; but, could any one thing tend, more than another, to induce the people to believe that concealment was intended, than meeting with a direct negative the resolution of his hon. friend. That it was a violation of the privileges of that House, and of the constitution, he decidedly believed.
After a short reply, the House divided. For the Motion 102; For the previous Question 181; Majority against Mr. M. A. Taylor's motion 79.

SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he had a petition to present from Chester, on the subject of "the Abolition, of Slavery in the West-Indian Colonies". Their lordships were perfectly aware that since the year 1807, when the Slave-trade was put an end to, until 1823, little or nothing was done with a view to the amelioration of the slave-population, or of putting an end to slavery itself. It therefore happened that in 1823 there was an universal call upon government to come forward and do something; and a most distinguished
1464
minister did, much to his honour, propose certain resolutions, which were adopted. Subsequent to that period certainly more than before was done, but so little, that he was sorry to state how little was done, with a view to carry those resolutions into effect. What had been done? In Trinidad, after a long period, a Colonial Assembly did pass a law, such as it was; but when it came over to this country for the approval of the king, his ministers advised him to return the bill as most inadequate for the purpose. He now came to another colony, Demerara, which had no legislature of its own. That colony was selected for the trial of the measures of government, and a petition was sent over from that colony to this country against those measures. He must say that it certainly was wise in those persons who were anxious to defeat the object of government, to put forward the colony of Demerara, which was under the more immediate control of government, to see whether that colony could induce the government to pause in carrying into effect the vital object manumission. If the colony of Demerara, having no legislature had succeeded, the colonies having legislatures could not have failed in effecting that purpose. If the slaves were not allowed to work out their freedom, what could happen but misery and despair? Besides having the Sundays to themselves, they ought to be allowed some portion of the week days; otherwise, how was it possible for these unfortunate people to obtain the means of ultimately indemnifying their masters. In this state of things, what was the conduct of the West-India colonies? They had arraigned in the severest terms the conduct of the government, in recommending manumission, and declared their determination to mar that object. It was said, indeed, by their partisans, that if the slaves were manumitted, no work would be done, and the estates would be permitted to remain uncultivated. He admitted that there were instances in which this might have been the case; but there were other instances in which free labour had been beneficially conducted. On this point he regretted that the particular facts, as connected with St. Domingo, were not before them; for then they could see how far they were dependent for the supply of sugar on the West-India islands, or if the latter were at the bottom of the ocean, whether they would

1465
not have elsewhere an abundance of sugar. As to the predictions of the colonists, before the abolition of the Slave-trade, it had been said, that if the motion were carried, a supply of negroes would not be found to work the lands. Mr. Pitt ably demonstrated the fallacy of such an apprehension, and the result had proved the correctness of his judgment. The fact was, that the class of planters who were satisfied with a fair portion of slave-labour always had their work well done; while there were others, who were never satisfied with what they got in field service. The greatest abuse had been heaped upon a late right hon. gentleman, and on the noble earl opposite (earl Bathurst) for their attempts to get the manumission clause acted upon; and it was in vain to hope the colonies would obey, without compulsion, the orders in Council. If this privilege were not secured for the slave-population, there would be an end to their moral as well as religious improvement. When men became acquainted with their rights, they must feel acutely the miseries of bad treatment, and be driven to despair if their wrongs were left unredressed. The enslavement of the mind must necessarily follow that of the body; and therefore he was anxious to avert, if possible, the evils which must attend a prosecution of the present vacillating system. The questions which he wished to ask were; first, what were the intentions of government respecting the manumission clause, if the colonies continued to be refractory? It had been recommended in that case to withdraw from them the bounties and protecting duties. Something ought surely to be done to command their compliance. Next, he wished to know what was the state of the mixed commission for arbitration; how far it had been successful, and at what expense? He was very anxious to see the Slave-trade put down under foreign flags, though he confessed he could not hope for the completion of that advantage until slavery was abolished in the British colonies. There was one other point on which he wished information; namely, what steps had been taken to improve the condition of the people of colour in the colonies?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he could assure the noble earl, that his majesty's servants who were in office when these resolutions had been passed, the government which had succeeded them, and the
1466
present administration, were each, and all of them invariably determined to give effect to the views of parliament on this subject. They had felt it their duty to proceed, in the sense and the spirit of the votes to which he alluded; namely, gradually, so as to keep in view the peace and tranquillity of the colonies, and the property and prosperity of all classes of the inhabitants. His majesty's servants had taken the most prudent steps for this purpose, and not without having made some progress in the work, as well as having gone far in establishing the principle they were enforcing. He ought likewise to observe upon the irritation displayed by Jamaica and other colonies on this subject. He might be permitted to say, that it was natural for men to be irritable who thought their property likely to be seriously affected by these measures of legislation. Still he admitted it was the duty of government to persevere in executing the wishes of parliament, until they were complied with— a compliance no less necessary for the advantage of the colonial proprietors, than of the slave population under them. To show how far the principle had been adopted by the colonial authorities, he had only referred to the Jamaica act of the last Legislative Assembly, which, though it had not received the royal assent, was not on account of any refusal to adhere to the principle, which it had fully recognized, but because of its having mixed up separate matters in the act, which it were better to have detached from it. Jamaica had, therefore, adopted a great part of the principle recommended by the government at home; and other colonies, St. Christopher, for instance had gone some way in the same path. On the whole he should say, considering the prejudices naturally interwoven with West-India views of this subject, it was more wonderful to behold the progress already made, than to express any strong censure for what remained to be done in furtherance of this business. Nevertheless, it was the duty of government to persevere in the mode best calculated to execute all these measures gradually and temperately. The noble earl had asked what they intended to do respecting manumission. They ought to recollect, that the Court of Policy of Demerara had petitioned against that part of the Order in Council; the Privy Council had not yet decided upon that petition. It was no doubt intended

1467
to carry that principle into execution; still, like every other part of so nice and complicated a consideration, the mode of acting upon it must be regulated by contingent circumstances. They must bear in mind, that, within the last year, there had been no less than four gentlemen in the office of Secretary for the Colonies, and really it was not possible, without very calm and deliberate consideration, to come to a safe conclusion upon a point of this kind: for himself he could own, that, up to the present day, the government had not made up their minds as to the mode of giving a practical application to the principle which, he again admitted, they were bound to see executed.—As to the general state of the Slave-trade, notwithstanding the treaties for its limitation or suppression which Great Britain had already made with every maritime state in the world, it was melancholy to be obliged to admit, that it was still carried on to a lamentable extent. He adverted to this fact, to show all the difficulties which surrounded this subject. England had spared no pains nor expense to arrange these treaties; yet he was afraid it would appear that at this very moment more slaves were borne away from Africa (not however into the British colonies), than were exported from thence before the abolition. As to the courts of Arbitration at Sierra Leone, they were very active: above a hundred cases had been brought before them for adjudication in the course of a few years; about twelve thousand slaves had been, through their agency, set at liberty, and the expense was near 16,000 l. a-year. If they had not been as effectual as could have been wished, no blame attached to the individuals engaged in them, who were certainly both zealous and active. With respect to the people of colour, regulations had been framed in Jamaica for enabling them to enjoy certain privileges, and hold certain situations in common with the white inhabitants.
Lord Calthorpesaid, that, instead of being disposed to look with confidence towards the colonies for a redress of wrongs, he saw nothing in their conduct which did not lead him to draw an opposite inference. He was quite at a loss to reconcile the noble duke's hopes with the recorded acts of these colonial bodies, and their avowed determination to thwart all the recommendations of the government at home upon the subject. In fact, the negroes
1468
had been very little relieved by any of these ameliorating acts of the colonies. The colonies did not, indeed, say; "wait until we can see if we can execute these orders; give us time to adapt ourselves to the change." On the contrary, they denounced the attempt to legislate for them throughout, as unjust and ruinous, and demonstrative of the ignorance of the government at home of their real situation in the colonies. How could the government, then, place any hopes in the promises of people, who plainly told them, that the parliament in framing these resolutions had not been governed by its proper legislative wisdom, but had on the contrary lent itself to the dictation of a set of fanatics who, in their indiscriminate wishes to tamper with the slave-population, were prepared to plunge the islands into bloodshed and ruin?—The noble lord then referred to the last Jamaica bill, and denied that it bore the character ascribed to it by the noble duke. He contended, that the baneful effect of slavery was in no case so remarkable as in these repeated aspersions of the deliberate decision of parliament. And who were the parties who denounced the British legislature in its attempts to save the colonists themselves from the blind fallacy of their own views? Why, they were planters who depended for subsistence upon the admission of their sugars into the British market, on terms which they would be unable to obtain in any other part of the world,— persons who solely depended for their safety on the presence of the British troops. It was only necessary to withdraw the latter, if they wished to have these people overrun by the immense native population that surrounded them. In fact, he saw no reason for the hopes which had been held out: even the strong- declaration of confidence expressed by the noble duke was more calculated to destroy than to strengthen their consummation.
Lord Seafordsaid:—My lords; though I cannot consider the present occasion, when there is no practical question before the House, to be one on which it can be desirable to discuss so delicate a question as that of the emancipation of the slaves in the West-India colonies, yet, as the noble lord who began this discussion, and the noble lord who spoke last, have both of them thought fit to enter very widely into this subject, and to indulge in some animadversions upon the conduct of the

1469
colonial legislatures, and the disposition of the inhabitants of the colonies, which appear to me to be neither correct nor deserved, I feel that it would be a failure of duty on my part, connected as I am with the colonies, if I were to allow those observations to pass altogether without some notice.
Never having had an opportunity of taking any part in your lordships' discussions on this subject, I am anxious in the first place, to state generally, and I will endeavour to do so very shortly, the outline of my opinions upon this question; and as those opinions happen to be in accordance with the principles and doctrines which have been laid down in the course of the discussions upon the abolition of the slave-trade and the emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies, by persons of the highest authority, not only as eminent statesmen, but as the most distinguished amongst the abolitionists, I will use their words, in illustration of my opinions, as well for the purpose of insuring to those opinions all the weight that is due to them, as for that of avoiding all possible cavil as to their title to such high sanction.
The soundest and most correct doctrine as it appeal's to me, with respect to the extinction of slavery in the West-India colonies, is to be found in a report of the African Institution, published in 1815: "They did not aim at an emancipation to be effected by insurrection in the West Indies, or to be ordained precipitately by positive law; but they never denied, and scrupled not to avow, that they did look forward to a future extinction of slavery in the colonies to be accomplished by the same happy means which formerly put an end to it in England; namely, by a benign, though insensible revolution in opinions and manners, by the encouragement of particular manumissions, and the progressive melioration of the condition of the slaves, till it should slide insensibly into general freedom. They looked, in short, to an emancipation, of which not the slaves but the masters should be the willing instruments, or authors."
My lords; I too look to the future extinction of slavery in our colonies through a benign though insensible revolution in opinions and manners; and through a progressive improvement in the condition of the slaves; and I too consider that the only safe process by which the state of sla-
1470
very can be converted into that of general freedom, is one by which it shall slide insensibly from the one end to the other—that it must be an emancipation of which not the masters but the slaves shall be the instruments, and the willing instruments also. I further consider, that the improvement in the condition of the slave, which is to lead the way to this happy change, must be accomplished through the medium and instrumentality of their masters.
This opinion is supported by the authority of Mr. Canning, who, when speaking as the organ of the government in 1824, (in the speech in which he stated to the House of Commons the measures adopted by the government in pursuance of their resolutions of the preceding year) thus expresses himself:—" If the condition of the slave is to be improved, that improvement must be introduced through the medium of his master. The masters are the instruments through whom, and by whom, you must act upon the slave-population; and if by any proceedings of ours we shall unhappily place between the slave and his master a barrier of insurmountable hostility, we shall at once put an end to the best chance of emancipation, or even of amendment. Instead of diffusing gradually over those dark regions a pure and salutary light, we may at once kindle a flame only to be quenched in blood."
With respect to that assistance which this benevolent, but most difficult work, must receive from legislative enactments, I find a sanction for the operation which I myself have always entertained from the first moment that I was enabled to form an opinion upon this subject, in Mr. Brougham's work upon Colonial Policy:— "Any parliament, council or senate, which should begin such a work, would find it necessary to give up legislating for the mother country, in order partly to mar and partly to neglect the legislation of the colonies. Let this branch of the imperial administration then he left to the care of those, who are themselves the most immediately interested in the good order and government of those different provinces,—and whose knowledge of local circumstances (of those things which cannot be written down in reports, nor told by witnesses) is more full and practical."
Further, in confirmation of the doctrine here laid down by Mr. Brougham, of the expediency of leaving the task of legislation

1471
to the colonial assemblies, and in refutation of the favorite doctrine of the present day, which has been so much pressed upon your lordships, by the two noble lords who have just addressed you, (lord Grosvenor and lord Calthorpe) of the expediency of parliament taking the measure of emancipation into their hands, I cite the great authority of Mr. Fox.—Mr. Fox, in the year 1806,—and the moment, my Lords, is remarkable—when he was at the head of one of the strongest administrations which this country has ever seen, which at once immediately abolished the slave-trade, which not all the eloquence of Mr. Wilberforce, aided by the power and eloquence of Mr. Pitt, had been able to accomplish. Mr. Fox, in the plenitude, and with the full consciousness, of all that power, thus expresses himself on the subject of emancipating the slaves in the West-India colonies by act of parliament: —"The idea of an act of parliament to emancipate the slaves in the West Indies, without the consent and concurrent feelings of all parties concerned, both in this country and in that, would not only be mischievous in its consequences, but totally extravagant in its conception, as well as impracticable in its execution— and therefore I see no good in discussing that point."
My lords, I will quote only one authority more, but that the one which on this question is perhaps the highest authority of all—that of Mr. Wilberforce. Mr. Wilberforce, in a speech on his motion for the abolition of the slave trade in 1804, thus expresses himself:—" After the question of abolition shall be disposed of, any subsequent measures must be left with the colonial assemblies themselves, and with them it would rest, how far the condition of the slaves was capable of further improvement."
My lords, the principles and doctrines laid down (in the extracts which I have quoted) by the African Institution, by Mr. Canning, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Wilberforce, constitute my creed on the subject of West-India slavery.
To any measures founded upon or in conformity with these principles I should feel it my duty to give my humble, but most sincere and zealous support, but in the measure of compulsory manumission, as it is termed, it is impossible for me to concur.
My lords, I deeply regret that the go-
1472
vernment have thought it right or necessary to depart from the sound principle laid down by the African Institution, of working out the extinction of slavery in our West-India colonies by the same happy means which had put an end to it in England, the only means of which history affords us any successful example, viz.—"the encouragement of particular and voluntary manumissions;" and that they should have thought fit to substitute in its place the regulation of compulsory manumission, a measure which I conceive to be unsound in its principle, mischievous in its immediate consequences, and totally inoperative as to its ultimate object."
So long as the slave looks up to his master as possessing the absolute power of granting or withholding his freedom, so long will he feel it to be his interest, with the view of accomplishing that object, to conciliate the good will of his master by his good conduct; but when you grant to him the privilege of compelling his master to manumit him, that motive will cease, and another will be substituted in its place. He will not fail to discover that the price of his manumission will be estimated in proportion to the value to his master—that in proportion as he is well behaved and industrious, and a valuable labourer or servant, in the same proportion will the price of his freedom be enhanced, and the period at which he can hope to attain it rendered more distant. He will consequently feel it to be his interest to diminish his value—to render himself as worthless to his master as he can possibly be.
On the other hand, if the master should apprehend any inconvenience from the loss of his slave (and otherwise the compulsory privilege is useless) he will feel it to be his interest to prevent his acquiring the means of purchasing his freedom, by depriving him of many of the indulgences which the slaves now enjoy, and which you cannot compel their masters to grant to them.
As a compulsory measure against the master in this respect it is utterly inefficient. You may compel him, and justly, to afford to the slave the means of subsistence and comfort, ample and abundant, equal to those which are within the reach of the free labouring population of this or any other country; but further you cannot go —you cannot compel him, in addition to such means of subsistence, to grant to his slave the further means of accumulating

1473
property sufficient to pay the price of his manumission.
At the same time by giving to the slave only a nominal and illusory privilege, professedly independent of his master, but which he cannot exercise against the will of his master, you only suggest to him an additional motive for being discontented with his condition, without affording him the means of changing it—you aggravate, instead of mitigating, the evils necessarily inherent in the relation of master and slave,—you implant in the breast of each, feelings towards the other utterly at variance and inconsistent with that reciprocal good-will absolutely essential to the moral and physical improvement of the condition of the slaves, which it is the object of all the regulations proposed by parliament to promote. For these reasons I lament, not so much on behalf of the master, as of the slave, that the government have thought it necessary to adopt this regulation, and I cannot but deprecate its enforcement.
Of all the other measures which have been suggested by the government to the colonial legislatures for their adoption, I have no hesitation in declaring now, as I have publicly declared elsewhere, that I entirely approve:—and I cannot but lament that they have not met with a more favorable reception in the colonies. On the other hand, I feel equally bound to say, that I think the indisposition of the colonies to meet the wishes of the government and of this country has been greatly exaggerated by both the noble lords, (lords Grosvenor and Althorpe) and that the measures which have been adopted by them have been misrepresented, undervalued and treated with a degree of contempt which they by no means merit.
Much has undoubtedly been done, in principle, as has been properly stated by the noble duke—many excellent regulations have also been adopted—as I could prove to your lordships by reading the enactments of the last consolidated slave-law of Jamaica, (which I hold in my hand) the act which the noble lords have referred to, and with which they have found so much fault.
But I will not trespass upon your lordships' time by going into those details.— I will content myself with calling your lordships' attention to one point, which I consider of the highest importance, and on which I can venture to assert that there
1474
exists no cause to be dissatisfied either with the disposition of the colonial assemblies to forward the views of the government by legislative enactments, or of good-will on the part of the owners of slaves to afford their individual co-operation—I mean, the moral improvement and religious instruction of the negroes.
For the correctness of this assertion I appeal to the noble lord under whose auspices the extension and reform of the church establishment of the colonies was commenced, who has received the written, reports of the bishops, and subsequently had the opportunity of having the fullest personal communications with them—to him, and to the other members of his majesty's government who have had similar means of information, I confidently appeal as to the disposition of the inhabitants of the colonies on this most important point.
My lords, I attach the more importance to that disposition, because the moral improvement of both the white and black population of the colonies must be the foundation of all other improvement—because this is the necessary preliminary to all that other class of regulations which relate to civil rights and privileges—because you must first produce that revolution in morals and manners which shall prepare the slaves to receive, before you can justly or safely call upon their masters to grant, that participation in civil rights and privileges which the two Houses of parliament have declared it to be their purpose to impart to our slave-population of the colonies—because you cannot otherwise fulfil that purpose consistently with the condition which in the same resolution you have annexed to it—and to which you are not less solemnly pledged than to the fulfilment of that purpose itself, however imperative and sacred that duty may be—the condition that both the means and the period of fulfilling that purpose shall be compatible with the well-being of the slaves themselves, the safety of the colonies, and a due regard for the interests of private property.
Earl Bathurstsaid, he had great pleasure in being enabled to state, from communications he had had with the bishops of Jamaica and Barbadoes, that these prelates in their circuits through the islands had found the planters most solicitous to promote morality and religion among their slaves. In another particular he must

1475
corroborate the statement of his noble friend. Government were pledged to the abolition of slavery, but they were equally pledged that it should be accomplished in a manner compatible with the welfare of the slaves, and the integrity of property. One of these pledges was as binding upon them as the other, and it was their duty to attempt to fulfil both.
Ordered to lie on the table.