Sitting of 25 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The Tobacco Growth Prohibition (Ireland), the Printed Cottons, was read a second time. The Annual Indemnity, read a first time.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. GEORGE LAMB, Copies of the Correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Agent for the Colonies of Saint Christopher and Dominica, respecting the abstracts of Slave-laws, referred to in the Resolution of this House, dated on the 24th instant; summary statements of the number of Persons charged with Criminal Offences, who were committed to the different Gaols in England and Wales, for trial at the Assizes and Sessions held for the several Counties, Cities, Towns, and Liberties therein, during the last seven years, distinguishing the number in each year, and shewing the nature of the crimes, respectively, of which they were convicted, acquitted, and with which those were charged, against whom no bills were found, and who were not prosecuted; also, the sentences of those convicted and the number executed of those who received sentence of death.

REFORM PETITIONS.
Sir George Clerkpresented a Petition from the Bankers, Merchants, and other inhabitants of Edinburgh, against the plan of Reform which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers for altering the Representation of the country. The petition, he said, was numerously and most respectably signed; he agreed in all its sentiments, and he conceived that it was highly deserving of the attention of the House.
Mr. Humecould not allow this petition to be laid on the Table without saying, that he did not think it deserved so much attention as the hon. Baronet claimed for it. He was willing to admit, that the signatures to it were respectable, but he believed that only 600 persons had signed it, out of a population of 140,000 or 150,000, which existed in Edinburgh. This petition, besides, had been agreed to at a private meeting; and when Reporters for the public Press attended, to know what was going on, with a view to communicate it to the public, they were turned out of the room. He (Mr. Hume) understood, that when the first speaker rose to address this private meeting, it was whispered to him, that there were two Reporters in the room. The Reporters stated, that they merely attended to give a correct account of the proceedings, but they were not suffered to remain, and were forthwith turned out of the room. This petition might be taken as representing the opinions of, undoubtedly, a respectable, but a very limited, class of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. Many of those who had signed it were certainly persons of considerable property and influence in

931
Edinburgh, but they all belonged to one party that had long ruled Scotland, and whose friends had hitherto filled all the official situations in that country. He begged the House to bear in mind, besides, that a petition cordially approving of the plan of Reform had been already presented from Edinburgh, signed by 35,000 inhabitants of that city. He therefore thought it but right to enter his pro-test against this petition being considered as expressing the opinions of the people of Edinburgh.
Mr. Pringlesaid, that this petition was similar to the one which had been already adopted in the city of London. It was adopted at a meeting which was not called for discussion, and therefore the Reporters were excluded. He denied that it had been signed by persons belonging to only one class or party in Edinburgh. There were many moderate reformers, and many who had supported the present Ministry until they had brought in their Bill of Reform, who had signed this petition.
Sir G. Stauntonwished to take that opportunity to set himself right with the public with regard to a misstatement which had gone forth of his sentiments on this important question of Reform. He did not rise to complain of a wilful misrepresentation, for there was no individual in that House who could admire more than he did the great and extraordinary accuracy with which their Debates were given to the public. He was the more anxious to set himself right on this matter, as it appeared to him that if ever there was a question upon which it was of importance that the sentiments of a Member should be accurately known, and the reasons for giving his vote should be correctly stated, it was upon this great and momentous question of Reform. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow him to explain and correct the misrepresentations of his sentiments which had gone forth to the public. He was reported to have said, in presenting a petition in favour of Reform, that he not only concurred in the prayer of the petition, but that he also gave his unqualified assent to the Bill which was now in progress through that House. What he did say was this,—that he agreed entirely with the first prayer of the petition, but that he regretted that he could not give his concurrence to the second prayer of the petitioners. He added, that he was for a
932
fair and moderate Reform, that he quite agreed with those who thought such a Reform necessary, and that, looking forward to the great alterations which might be made in the Bill when in Committee, he was disposed to support it on the second reading. He was ready to admit that there were some admirable provisions in the Bill, but there were several in it from which he totally dissented. Thinking, however, that the question was one of Reform or no Reform, he had given his vote for the second reading of that Bill, and he trusted that in Committee the Bill would be so modified as to effect a fair and moderate Reform, with safety and security to the interests of the country at large.
Sir G. Clerkpresented a Petition from the Freeholders of the county of Peebles, and another from the Householders, Commissioners of Supply, and other inhabitants of the same county, praying that it might not be joined to that of Selkirk, for the purpose of having only one Representative.
Mr. Hodgespresented a Petition from the island of Sheppey, and fifty-nine Petitions from other places in Kent, in favour of the Reform Bill. The hon. Member then presented a Petition from Sandwich, against that part of the Reform Bill which disfranchised non-resident electors.
Mr. Marryatsaid, that he had been requested to support the prayer of the petition by a large out-dwelling constituency, whom it was intended to disfranchise by the Bill now before the House. He conceived, however, that the Isle of Thane from its importance and population, was entitled by the principle of the Bill to re-turn a Member; though he could not acquiesce in that part of the petition which, to accomplish that end, assumed the disfranchisement of Sandwich of one of its present Representatives. He would rather draw upon the reserved stock in trade of the noble Paymaster. He considered that he sat in Parliament, not as the representative of Sandwich merely, but as a representative of the people at large; and conscientiously believing that a Reform WHS imperiously called for, on principle he had voted for the second reading of the Bill. At the same time, he could not neglect the rights and franchises of his constituents, which, as a representative of the Cinque Ports, he had sworn to defend and maintain. He should, therefore, in the details of the Bill, follow their instructions as to

933
opposing those provisions which not merely invaded, but went to extinguish their rights and privileges.
Mr. Grove Pricecomplained, that upon a former occasion it had been asserted that Sandwich was a corrupt Admiralty borough; whereas at the last election it had returned a Member against the Admiralty nomination. The voters of Sandwich now exceeded 900, and by the new Bill they would be reduced to between 100 and 200. He deprecated the Reform Bill as exceeding any measure of revolution since that effected by the venal and corrupt satellites of Henry 8th.
Mr. Hodgespresented the Petition of the county of Kent, in favour of Reform. The hon. Member said, that before he made any observations upon the important meeting which had taken place in the county, he would beg leave to read the petition itself to the House. The hon. Member accordingly read the petition, and then proceeded to say, that he cordially supported the petition, which set forth the sentiments of the great and leading county which he had the honour to represent, in so able a manner as to preclude the necessity of his addressing the House at any length upon the subject. The petition had been agreed to at a full meeting of all classes of the inhabitants of the county, and the public sentiment had been unanimous. He must make one more remark upon this latter point, which was, that although the meeting had been held in the town of Maidstone, amidst the freemen of that borough, who amounted to more than 1,200, and a great proportion of whom would be deprived of their elective franchise by the Reform Bill, yet so strongly were the opinions of all classes in favour of the measure, that not one single dissentient voice was heard in the meeting, and with the exception of the noble Lord, the member for Wootton Basset, not one single hand was raised against the petition. This unanimity amongst all classes of so wealthy and populous a county could not but have a great influence upon the minds of that House; and he anticipated the final triumph of Ministers in carrying the Reform Bill through the House, in accordance with the wishes of the whole nation, as the source of every moral and political improvement.
Mr. John Jonescomplained, that while the Bill professed to lop off all rotten bo-
934
roughs, it had left one untouched—that of Wiston—which contained but a single house, belonging to Lord Cawdor, a nobleman who always voted with Ministers. It might, too, be convenient for the political interests of the Marquis of Anglesey, that the inhabitants of Criccieth should be excluded from voting in the borough of Carnarvon, but that regulation was assuredly not just to those people. That the interest of these two noble Lords was so well protected seemed to him an extraordinary circumstance.
Lord John Russellthought the discussion very irregular at that moment, and said, that he had no intention to enter into a history of the Welsh Representation at that period; but if the hon. Gentleman thought that the Government had consulted Lord Cawdor, or particularly attended to his interests in the framing of the Bill, he was very much mistaken. Neither did he believe that it would be found that Lord Cawdor's tenants woud be particularly benefitted by the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. George Dawson,however irregular might be the discussion at that moment, wished to state a few gross inconsistencies in the Bill. He wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the proposed Representation of the county of Durham, a Representation which, once known to the people of England, could not fail to give them the greatest dissatisfaction. The representation that was to be given to that county was the more worthy of notice, as it was pretty generally understood that the noble Lord who took his title from that county had been instrumental in drawing up the Bill. The county at present had four Members, to these it was proposed to add six more, for Sunderland, South Shields, and the parish of Gateshead. Now, he wanted to know on what principle these places had been selected? Gateshead contained but 11,900 inhabitants, while in Lancashire there were no less than sixteen parishes, all of which were more populous, and were still to remain without Representation; there were twelve parishes in Lancashire larger than South Shields, and four larger than Sunderland, all of which were to remain without Representatives, and there was even one unrepresented parish in Lancashire which was larger than all the three places he had named put together. This, therefore, appeared to him to be a most absurd system of legislation; because,

935
if the whole population of one county was set against another, it would appear that the Representation of Durham was to be one Member to every 20,000 inhabitants, while that of Lancashire was only that of one Member to every 65,000 inhabitants. After such an arrangement as this, he thought some ill-natured persons might say, that all that was intended by Government in this new Bill was, to take away Gatton from its present proprietor, and bestow it on Lord Durham. Nor was this the only thing of which he had to complain; the way in which the public Press was managed by the advocates of the Bill was by no means such as to be of service to the country, or to display the question in a just light, for while the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were reported at a length to their heart's content, that of his right hon. friend was curtailed even in such a paper as The Times.
Sir G. Warrendersaid, that so far from any sacrifice having been made to Lord Cawdor, the Bill annihilated his Lordship's interest in one of the Scotch counties.
Mr. C. Wooddid not believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dawson) thought that his Majesty's Ministers had been actuated by any such unworthy motives as he had imputed to them. There were many discrepancies, such as had been pointed out, in York as well as in Lancashire, but the Bill never pretended even to approximate to the principle of district Representation. The population of a parish and a township was very different.
Sir J. Sebrightprotested against such discussions upon these petitions. If the practice were to be persevered in, Members had better send all their petitions back to their constituents, for there never could be time to present them.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that the Bill, in its relation to Durham, had very properly taken into consideration the great commercial interests of such places as Sunder-land and South Shields. It would be found that the Bill favoured the interests of Lord Londondery quite as much as those of Lord Durham, and the idea of partiality to private interests was unfounded.
Lord Stanleysaid, that the views taken by the. right hon. member for Harwich had been founded in his confusion of parishes and townships as synonymous terms.
Mr. Borrodailedenied, that the Bill gave any undue favour to Lord Durham. There
936
were already three candidates for the Re- presentation of South Shields, one of whom had received nearly the promises of the whole town, and yet he was wholly unconnected with Lord Durham.
Petition to lie on the Table. On the motion that it be printed,
Lord J. Russellsaid, he would be perfectly ready in the Committee to correct the misstatements that had been made on the subject, and to explain the grounds upon which the Bill had been framed in the particulars alluded to. To enter into them then, was neither more nor less than prematurely going into Committee on the Bill, and he, therefore, did not feel called upon to answer the objections that had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. Sir C. Forbes said, that as quoting Scriptures was a sign of the times, he should refer to Ministers a passage which directed that every man should take care of his own household, which it seemed the Ministers had obeyed.
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, that he cast no personal imputation on Ministers, but merely a parliamentary imputation, arising from the facts before the House, and which imputation must remain until the noble Lord should think proper to give his explanation. As the Committee on the Bill was postponed until the 14th of April, there was no other mode of enlightening the country upon the matter, than by speaking when presenting petitions, and he therefore hoped it would be persevered in.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the people of England in genera], and the people of Lancashire in particular, would be delighted to get such a Member as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) to defend their rights. Had the right hon. Member not spoken with so good a face, he might have mistaken him for one of those ill-natured persons whom he described as likely to attribute unworthy motives to the framers of the Bill.
Lord Morpethobserved, that this was the first time he had ever known his Majesty's Government censured for bringing forward a measure which was called for by the general voice of the people.
Mr. Ruthventook that opportunity of observing, that he saw, in a publication of that morning, expressions attributed to a noble Lord, which he believed and hoped he had never made use of. The Marquis of Londonderry was said to hare stated,

937
in a public place, that a certain Reform, or rather Radical, Society, was established in the county of Down, from which society the county of Down petition for Reform emanated. [Order.]
The Speakersaid, that the House of Commons had an undoubted right to deal with a breach of its own orders in a public print, but it did not follow that it had an equal right to interfere with respect to matters which had occurred elsewhere. It was, in fact, disorderly to mention, in that House what had happened in another place.
Mr. Ruthvendid not think that he had said any thing out of order. He had not named the House of Lords. [Order.]
The Speaker.—Will the hon. Member give an assurance to the House that he did not refer to the House of Lords?
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he recollected the other evening, when the hon. member for Middlesex wished to state a circumstance, he observed, that it had occurred in a certain place—he believed the hon. Member mentioned Brobdignag. He then would say, there was, in a certain island— [order!] If he were not allowed to proceed, as the hon. member for Middlesex had done, then he would say, that he heard that a certain Member. [Order.]
The Speakeragain admonished the hon. Member that he was transgressing the rules of the House.
Mr. Ruthven.—Well, then, he understood that it had been asserted, no matter where, that the meeting of freeholders of the county of Down was not of so respectable a character as it had been described to be. Now, in answer to that, he would observe, that it was regularly convened by the High Sheriff, and that the petition, which was agreed to, was signed by a great number of the most respectable persons. Many of them, so far from being of the lowest class, belonged to the highest class of freeholders,—the 50 l. freeholders. The meeting assembled to petition in favour of Parliamentary Reform; and the questions of Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot, were cautiously avoided at that meeting. This was no ordinary subject; and he felt himself called upon to state these facts in justice to those upright and honourable people, who had assembled on the occasion alluded to. He was glad to see the noble Lord (Castlereagh) in his place, because he, from his connexion with the
938
county, must know many of these petitioners to be persons of property and respectability. Those who called the meeting had no wish to agitate or disturb the county; their only desire was, to speak their sentiments on Parliamentary Reform in a temperate and constitutional manner. He felt it necessary to vindicate the character of the people of the county of Down, for it was of great importance to them that they should stand well in the public mind.
Viscount Castlereaghsaid, the petition was certainly signed by 1,300 freeholders of the county of Down, and he believed the meeting to have been very respectable; but, as he had said in his letter, assigning his reasons for not attending that meeting, he could not consider it as including any thing like all the wealth and intelligence of that county.
Mr. John Jonesthought, that every Member had, on the presentation of Reform petitions, a right, if he thought fit, to state his sentiments on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord. It appeared to him to be a Bill, to say the least of it, that went to disfranchise all the lower classes of voters, and which drew a distinguishing line between the richer and poorer subjects of the realm, that was never before contemplated. That part of the Bill which related to the Welsh boroughs he had already referred to, was most unjust, and he trusted that it would not pass through a Committee without the obnoxious provisions being altered.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the principle of the Bill was, to give votes to resident, and to disfranchise non-resident voters; but if there were any thing in the constitution of certain Welsh boroughs, which, with respect to residence and non-residence, ought to take them out of the general rule, it would, of course, be considered in the Committee.
Mr. Philip Howardhad no objection to Gentlemen making speeches on petitions, provided they were not very long ones, and that he understood was the objection of the hon. member for Hertfordshire.
Sir James Grahammoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committe of Supply.

WEST-INDIA QUESTION.
Mr. K. Douglas,seeing an hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Buxton) in his place, wished to put a question to him. The hon. Gentleman

939
had a notice standing on the book relative to the West-Indies, and he was anxious to receive an explanation from him as to the object which he had in view, with reference to that subject. They must all see the inconvenience of having a vague notice of this kind standing on the votes. He, therefore, inquired what was the object of the hon. Gentleman's intended motion? And he also called on him to fix on some positive day for bringing it forward.
Mr. F. Buxtonsaid, his object was, to move a Resolution of that House, for the extinction of slavery. That Resolution, which he had not with him at the present moment, he had framed, with the assistance of a number of his friends. Little had been done by the colonial authorities, and he expected that little would be done by them. It was necessary, therefore, that the House should interfere, and that interference ought to have in view the abolition of slavery. He would most readily leave the matter in the hands of Government, if Government would take it up. If the House would allow him, he would bring on the Question on Tuesday next;

THE REFORM BILL.
Sir William Raeasked whether the second reading of the Scotch Reform Bill would come on that night, or whether any definite arrangement concerning it had been made?
Lord Althorpsaid, that it would be brought on in the course of the evening; but it was impossible to say at what hour.
On the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Sir R. Peeltook —the liberty of calling the attention of the noble Lord opposite to matters of detail connected with the Reform Bill, which involved considerations of very great importance. For the purpose of his argument m this case he would assume, that the principle was perfectly correct, and he would assume that it was expedient, to disfranchise sixty boroughs, and take away the privilege of returning one Member from forty-seven, that the right might hereafter be transferred to places of greater population. But, supposing that he admitted the principle to be a proper one in itself, he was sure the noble Lord would agree with him that the principle ought to be applied in a manner conformable to justice, and he thought it was of extreme importance, before the House went into a Committee, that they
940
should guard against doing an injustice, which manifestly would be done, if the disfranchisement were made to fall on places of a larger population than others that were not disfranchised. He was sure that the position which he had laid down would be acquiesced in, both by the friends and opponents of the Bill. One of the Returns on the Table contained an account of the population in the different cities and boroughs in England, and, amongst others, of those which it was intended wholly to disfranchise, and of those from which one Member was to be withdrawn. The Return professed to be a Return of the population in each city and borough; but he apprehended that it was not. In some cases it was a Return of the population of the parish in which the borough was situated; and in other cases it was a Return of the population, not in the parish, but in the borough It was quite clear that the House ought either to take the population in the parish or in the borough, and apply the rule indiscriminately to all places. Me need not demonstrate the inconveniences of applying the principle in one case, and not applying it in the other. Take the case of the borough which he represented, with respect to which it was evidently a duty he owed to his constituents, to prevent the application of an unjust principle towards them. The parish in which Tarn worth was situated contained 7,500 inhabitants. That part of the parish within the jurisdiction of the borough did not, in 1821, contain more than 3,500 inhabitants; therefore, according to the schedule of the Bill, Tamworth would be deprived of one of its Representatives.— Take the case of the borough of Bridge-water, or take the case of the borough of Calne. Calne appeared to contain a population of 5,600 inhabitants; and if the limits of the borough were identical with the limits of the parish, Calne ought not to be disfranchised; but if the limits of the borough were smaller than those of the parish and it contained less than 4,000 inhabitants it did not contain more than 3,500—there was no just principle upon which Calne should be protected and Tamworth disfranchised. Without himself moving for any returns, he would suggest to the noble Lord opposite, that the application of the principle should be made consistently with perfect justice, and he would therefore advise the noble Lord immediately to procure returns which would

941
show what the population was in each parish and each borough. It appeared on the face of the return, that the parish of Bridgewater was co-extensive with the borough, but that only one-third part of the parish was entitled to vote for Representatives. Thus, although Bridgewater had 5,000 inhabitants, as far as the parish was concerned, yet, as far as the borough was concerned, he strongly suspected there would not be found 4,000 inhabitants within its limits. If this principle were applied to every borough, it would be found that in many there was no cause for disfranchisement.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had taken the liberty of saying, last night, in answer to the member for Boroughbridge, that it was his intention to abide by the resolution of disfranchising the boroughs coming within the rules; but he at the same time staled, that if any mistake were made in the population returns, certainly it was not his intention to do anything unjust, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, and he had not the least objection to attend to suggestions of that nature. It was impossible, previous to bringing in the Bill, to ask for return's more specific than the population returns.
Mr. F. Lewiswished to know what rule had been followed in framing the proposition at present before the House. He would suggest the propriety of laying before the House the answers which had been returned to the inquiries respecting the population of each borough, in every case where a detailed answer had been given. He had seen a detailed answer from the borough of Radnor. That information had not been laid before the House. It was however in the power of the Home Office at once to lay it before the House, and it would supply a great mass of information which it would be extremely desirable to have.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was obvious that the rule which applied to England did not apply to Wales, the systems being totally distinct. As to the information given to the Home Office, he had no hesitation in saying, that he was quite ready to lay the whole of that before the House. If the rule which had been laid down was favourable to a borough, it ought to be extended to Tamworth, or any other borough in a similar situation. He would see in what manner the information might best be laid before the House.
Mr. Balfourobserved, that perhaps the noble Lord would say, that the Representation of Scotland should also receive a different rule from that of England. The boroughs of East Fife, the two Anstruthers, Crail, and others, which were to be disfranchised, contained a population of 6,000 inhabitants. These, therefore, taken together, ought not to be disfranchised. In this district the houses were more numerous than the houses in the two boroughs which still returned two Members, and more numerous than in the boroughs where the 8l. houses were still to return one Member.
Lord Encombesaid, that he was anxious, as every individual was, to support the body which he represented, and, therefore, he would observe, with respect to Truro, that it appeared, according to the population returns, that there were 2,712 inhabitants in the parish of St. Mary; but there was also a note to this effect:—"The parishes of St. Clement and St. Mary, extending to the town of Truro, are supposed to have three times the population of the borough." He had received a paper which had not this note appended to it. In the year 1821 Truro actually had about 7,000 inhabitants, and it had now considerably more. He thought that the returns on which the Bill had proceeded were too incomplete to serve as the basis of Legislation, and he hoped the information promised by the noble Lord, would supply means of correcting them.
Mr. Home Drummondalso complained of the inaccuracy of the returns, and expressed his wish to have more precise and certain information. This observation applied particularly to Scotland, for which the returns as to the houses rated at 10 l. were very imperfect.
Mr. G. Mooresaid, that if every 10 l. a year inhabitant within the limits of Dublin was to have a vote, it would actually amount to universal suffrage. There was not a single householder, holding a tenement of his own, who did not pay a rent of 10 l. He hoped Government would take some steps to have the necessary information laid before the House as to the rates and cesses on houses in Ireland.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that if the hon. Member would suggest any returns which he could move for, which would throw greater light upon this subject as to the 10 l. householders, Government would be happy to furnish him with the information. As

943
to Dublin, there was a paper which would supply the hon. Member with what information he required: viz. the Returns of the Commissioners, who, having divided the houses into twenty different classes, had furnished an abstract, giving full information as to the 10 l. householders in Dublin. There were 17,000 houses of the value of 10 l. and upwards.
Mr. O'Connellsuggested that the limits of the parishes should be taken as the limits of the boroughs.
Mr. Stanleythought there would be much greater inconvenience in that than leaving a discretionary power as to the limits of the borough.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, with reference to the borough he represented (Malmesbury), that the population of that beautiful and thriving place was upwards of 7,000. Now, with every respect for the noble Lord, he would ask him whether it would not be the best way, at once for him to withdraw this Bill, for really and truly there were so many objections urged against it from all sides of the House, and objections so formidable, that if the noble Lord should succeed so far as to get it into Committee, which, however, he sincerely hoped would not be the case, it would be then plucked to pieces, feather by feather, and ultimately kicked out a mere skeleton.
An Hon. Memberhoped, that as information was to be given with respect to the English boroughs, the same would be afforded with respect to the towns in Scotland.
Sir R. H. Inglisasked, whether it would not be better to wait for the new population returns, for, from what now appeared, if they were to legislate on the returns of 1821, the measure would be most inconsequent.
Lord John Russellwas sorry to be obliged again to trespass on the House, but, with regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for the University, it would be impossible to comply with that. The new census was beginning at the present moment, but it would not be finished until July or August, and, were he to wait until then, let the House only consider the effect that would probably result as to the new returns. Something had already been said about Malton and its 4,005 inhabitants in 1821, and he wished the House to remember what a temptation it would afford to make false returns, when, by the addition of five persons, a borough might
944
be secured from disfranchisement. With respect to the observations of the hon. member for Malmesbury, he admitted that there were some doubts as to the population of certain boroughs; and Malmesbury was one, Buckingham was another; and there were about six in all. Having admitted that, he could assure the hon. Gentleman, that he had too much respect for the decision of the House of Commons, which had permitted the second reading of the Bill, not to make his stand upon that ground, and endeavour to carry the Bill to a successful and triumphant conclusion.
Sir Wm. Raesaid, he could not suppose that the same advantage of correct information would be denied to Scotland. Information was in its case doubly necessary, because there were now two returns inconsistent with each other.
Sir G. Clerkwished to know, whether the learned Lord had yet any accurate return of the 10 l. householders in Scotland? If the principle of allowing them to vote were carried into effect, the Representation of all the counties in Scotland would, he believed, pass out of the hands of the landed interest, and become vested in the inhabitants of towns.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that independent of the reasons given by the noble Lord against delay, there was still less reason to require returns for Scotland, as the Bill for that country proceeded on the same data as that for England. It would be better to legislate on the census of 1821, inasmuch as it was the latest made of an unimpeachable character, and a new one now for this purpose would probably lead to great partiality. Besides, there were now upon the Table returns up to the present year of the inhabited houses rated at a rent of 10 l. The apprehensions of the right hon. Baronet, as to the county Representation, were, in his opinion, unfounded.
An Hon. Member An Hon. Member complained, that these returns were by no means in the best shape; and he must repeat the statement, that the present plan of Representation would throw the Representation of Scotland into the hands of the inhabitants of the manufacturing towns. There was no question, that when a great number of boroughs were to be disfranchised, many applications would be made to alter the determination taken with respect to them; but if they found such accidents as the passing over Tavistock

945
and Calne, and the disfranchising of Tam-worth, then it became necessary that the House should exercise more than usual vigilance.
The Lord Advocatesaid, in consequence of the time which the Reform Bill for England was likely to occupy in Committee, he should be obliged to postpone the second reading of the Reform Bill for Scotland until the 22nd of April.
Sir Alexander Hopecould not allow the question to be disposed of without asking, whether it was the intention of the framers of the Bill, that the Scotch Clergy should remain in the same condition as they had been, or whether it was proposed that they should mingle the poison of politics with the discharge of their sacred duties, and, abandoning that course which had hitherto proved so eminently conducive to the moral health of the community, become again political partisans.
Colonel Lindsaysaid, he believed that the people of Scotland generally were averse from the details of the Bill, although some hon. Members had been at such pains to represent them as unanimous on that subject. He objected, however, to the delay which must take place, before the Bill could again come before the House for discussion, and observed, that great anxiety would be felt in Scotland during the intermediate period, from their ignorance of what was to be done.
Mr. Humedenied, that the people of Scotland were adverse to the Bill. From the one end of that country to the other they had expressed themselves in favour of it; and after the miserable minority— after the miserable minority, he repeated, on the question of Reform, he believed they could feel little anxiety on the subject. There were, to be sure, a few Gentlemen who got returned for Scotch counties, and fancied that they represented the opinions of all Scotland, who might, from feeling that it would affect their interests, oppose the Bill; but the great mass of the people were in its favour, as the petition from Renfrew, signed in a short time by 5,000 persons, sufficiently showed.
Mr. Scottdenied, that the great mass of the respectable portion of the people of Scotland were in favour of this plan of Reform. On the contrary, it was chiefly supported by those who expected to gain from it. A good deal of the agitation about Reform proceeded, indeed, from the exertions of the hon. member for Mid-
946
dlesex, to whom, as he had heard many of the persons who petitioned in favour of Reform applied for instructions. And he was told that the hon. Member, in conveying those instructions, expressly enjoined all applicants to make no objections to the plan of Reform, but to take it as it was, so that there might be no doubt of its success. He had heard, indeed, that the hon. member for Middlesex actually made a tour through the South of Scotland, to forward the cause of Reform, and in order to make his progress the more effective, threw petitions for Reform from the windows of a mail-coach.
Mr. Humesaid, the hon. Member charged him with being the agitator of Scotland. He denied that he had done or said anything to induce any part of the people of Scotland to petition in favour of Reform, until he received letters, begging him to point out the course which was fittest to be pursued. He believed that the opponents of Reform were mortified at the extent of agreement which prevailed among all parties on the subject of the Bill. They were pained to find the member for Waterford, the member for Preston, the members for Westminster, and men of all parties and degrees, uniting in favour of the Bill; and that seemed to him to be their greatest grievance. He supported the Bill because it was good for the present—yes, for the present—and if he found it did not produce all the good he expected, he certainly was not precluded from coming again to ask for more.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonbore testimony to the popularity of the Reform Question in Scotland; but he thought that the details of the Bill, with respect to the increased power given to the manufacturing class, and the inhabitants of towns, in stifling and overcoming the votes of the agricultural portion of the community in the counties, required very serious consideration.
Sir G. Murray,Sir G. Murray, without denying that a great portion of the people of Scotland were in favour of Reform, said, that he believed the county he had the honour to represent felt very little interest in the question. He agreed in the statements made by the hon. member for Kircud-bright (Mr. C. Ferguson) as to the defects in the details of the Bill, but he wished to repeat the question of the hon. member for Linlithgowshire (Sir A. Hope) with respect to the Scotch clergy. If they were to

947
be mingled up with politics, it would be most injurious. The Scotch clergy were enabled to preserve morality the more effectually for not interfering in politics, and were a connecting link between the great proprietors and the humbler classes of the community. He must contend, too, that the result of the change in Scotland would be, to compel the landlords to divide their land into small farms, that they might continue to exercise an influence over the elections. This, to be sure, the member for Middlesex would say called for the Ballot— and the Ballot he was ready to apply to it. —bat he apprehended that the promoters of the Bill were not disposed to go so far, and that they would consider well before they produced that state of circumstances which would place the people of Scotland in such a situation.
The Lord Advocate,in reply to the questions of the hon. Members, said, it was the intention of the framers of the Bill to leave the Scotch clergy in the same condition as they found them. At the present moment a Clergyman, if he possessed the necessary qualification, could vote for a Member for a county, like any other person, and under the Bill he would retain the same power if he had the qualification prescribed by the Bill. The framers of it were not, however, wedded to this part of its provisions, and it was in the power of any Member in the Committee to exclude Clergymen from voting, if they thought fit. He had no wish to elude discussion on the Bill, but the details of the English Reform Bill would probably occupy so much of the time of the House, as to preclude him from bringing this measure on at an earlier day than the one he had already announced.
Captain Wemysssaid, as he did not trouble the House often, he hoped to be indulged with a short hearing on this question. With regard to the English Bill, he concurred in the propriety of disfranchising the out-voters, and cutting off a certain number of boroughs. He also thought that the Representation in Scotland was not fit for the growing population, but he cautioned Ministers against going the length they proposed to go. He thought that every person possessing real property ought to have a vote. He was afraid, however, that the plan of Ministers would place the agricultural and manufacturing classes in opposition, and thereby cause a political warfare. He objected also to the
948
franchise being given to the tenantry, be-cause, if that were the case, the vote, in fact, would be given to the landlord, and the tenant would, in the long run, become his vassal. He approved of the principle on the whole as to the boroughs, though he could not see the propriety of disfranchising the district of burghs in Fife. If that was to be done because they were corrupt or rotten, he believed the remedy, in order to be effectual, ought to be more general. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that all Scotland was alive to the measure, and he would not deny that there was a silent feeling on the subject, but at the same time he must say, that many had petitioned for the measure whom it could not affect. He knew one manufacturer on his own estate, who called his people together, and made them sign the petition, though none of them would have a vote. He had received a petition to present oh the subject from the burgh of Auchter-muchty, and found that some time after, a duplicate of the petition had been presented by another Member, with only the addition of a few words in praise of Ministers. As far as the Fife tenantry were concerned, he knew they were alarmed on the subject.
An Hon. Member An Hon. Member for Scotland bore testimony to the strong feeling in favour of the measure in that country, and was glad to see that the opposition petitions got up in the two capitals, London and Edinburgh, had turned out such failures.

SUPPLY. NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
The sums of 75,110 l. for paying the wages of Ship-keepers, &c. on board Ships in Ordinary; 40,365 l. for the Officers of the Admiralty; 30,929 l. for defraying the expenses of the Navy Pay Office; 49,299 l. 2s. to defray the expenses of the salaries of Officers, and contingent expenses, of the Navy-office, were voted. On the Resolution that there be granted the sum of 20,162 l. 6s. to defray the salaries of Officers employed, and the contingent expenses of the scientific departments of the Navy,
Sir Joseph Yorkewished to take that opportunity of inquiring if the Thetis was supplied with a time-piece. That vessel was lost after a run of only twelve leagues.
Mr. Humecomplained that, considering the magnitude of our military and civil marine, too little had been done by Great

949
Britain for the encouragement of scientific discovery.
Mr. Warburtonsuggested, that all small vessels should be provided with chronometers, and also, that the whole of the earth's surface should be surveyed and mapped, as a surveyor mapped a small district of country. At least during peace our vessels could make accurate surveys of the great ports and headlands, and fix their relative distances from each other.
Sir Joseph Yorkewas really surprised to hear the two great economists and guardians of the public purse, like two Kings of Brentford—one of them elected too at Brentford—join in complaining of the inadequate expenditure of our funds on experimental science. It was enough that Government gave two chronometers to Officers who were willing to find one, so as to give the Officers a chance of taking correct mean time by the medium of three chronometers. More had been done by the scientific men of our country and our clay than by those of other nations in any similar period in extent. The North-west and North-east coast of America had been very nearly completely explored and defined, by Captains Parry, Beachy, and Franklin. Had the hon. Members ever heard of that poor man, Captain Ross, who saw the Croker Mountains stretching across the bottom of Lancaster Sound, where no mountains ever existed, as it had since appeared? or of the late expense of a voyage straight through the body of the ice, by boats, sledges, and ponies, to the Pole itself; and the charge of writing the plan out, and supporting it in the Quarterly Review, by Mr. Secretary Barrow? Or did the member for Bridport wish the Admiralty to send out vessels all over the seas to make observations, stuffed with chronometers, as turkeys are stuffed full with chestnuts? Enough had been done, in his mind, to secure the high character for science of this country, and to protect her civil and military marine, during the late Administration.
Sir James Grahaminformed the hon. Members, that at present there were various expeditions afloat for surveying the Adriatic and Grecian Archipelago, Cape Horn and the neighbouring coasts, New Zealand and the mouths of the River St. Lawrence. Three vessels also were now surveying the coasts of Great Britain, of which, even within these five or six years, there were no accurate surveys extant.
Resolution agreed to.
A grant was next proposed of 82,249 l. 10 s., to defray the salaries of Officers, and the contingent expenses of the Dock-yards.
Mr. Humeexpressed his wish that the Government would turn their immediate and particular attention to the very large establishments that were kept up in this department. The expenses of seven dockyards fell very heavily upon the public.
Sir James Grahamassured the hon. Gentleman, that his Majesty's Government had the subject under consideration. Material reductions had been already made, and they would continue to study economy in every instance in which it was practicable.
Sir George Clerkcomplained, that the Government did not adopt the true course in the retrenchments which they made. The reductions took place in those salaries which were already small in amount, while those upon a large scale were left untouched.
Sir Joseph Yorkeapproved of the general course pursued by the First Lord of the Admiralty, but wished to see a more equal system of reduction. The salary of the right hon. Baronet had been reduced from 5,000 l. to 4,500 l., which was certainly not too much for the efficient performance of the duties, and he thought that salaries of 500 l. or 600 l. ought to undergo a similar diminution.
Mr. Humeobserved, that at Chatham dock-yard there were twenty clerks employed, at an expense of 4,100 l.; at Portsmouth, thirty-one, at 6,426 l.; and at Plymouth thirty, at 5,900 l; while in private dock-yards, where 300 or 400 men were employed, two clerks were found sufficient. This proved that abuses must exist. But the case was still worse in the foreign dock-yards, where 21,200 l. yearly was paid to clerks and overseers, while the wages of the workmen did not exceed 38,000 l.
Sir James Grahamagain stated, that all the reductions had been made which were at present found practicable, but he would still have the same object in view, and would neglect no opportunity of acting upon a system of economy.
Sir Byam Martinsaid, in proof of the extensive reductions which had taken place, that it was a daily complaint with the Commissioners, that they could not get through the business so rapidly as they wished, owing to the small number of their hands.
In answer to a question from Lord Granville Somerset,
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the Government had under their consideration a plan in reference to the coast blockade, which he trusted would be satisfactory, both in the saving of expense and other important points of view.
Vote agreed to; as was a vote of 608,200 l. for the pay of 32,000 men, for one year, at 29 s. per man, per month. The right hon. Baronet stated that this sum was 3s. per month less than was taken last year for the same purpose.

UNAUTHORISED APPLICATION OF SUPPLIES.
On the question that the Chairman leave the Chair,
Sir Byam Martinsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a matter involving the credit of the King's Service. He did not intend to trouble the House for a long time on the subject, but he thought the matter was of sufficient importance to call on him to bring it under consideration. It had been publicly asserted, and the assertion had been studiously put abroad, that the late Board of Admiralty, and himself among the number, had made an improper use of the public money. A more scandalous and slanderous falsehood had never been uttered. He now called on the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, to state, whether, in the late Board of Admiralty, the Navy Pay-office or the Victualling Board, one shilling, or even one farthing, had ever been applied otherwise than for the public service? He called upon the right hon. Baronet to state, with that frankness and candour which always distinguished him, his opinion on this subject, formed as that opinion was upon an examination made by the right hon. Baronet himself. He was sure that a feeling of regard for the credit of the King's Service, and for the honour of the individuals concerned, some of whom now served under the right hon. Baronet, would induce him to give an explicit answer to the question, and to say whether they had ever improperly expended the public money. It was a matter of importance to all the parties concerned, and he asked not only for himself, but for the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and for all the persons connected with all the Navy departments, from the highest officer down to the meanest messenger or servant in them, whether by any one of these persons, any
952
one single farthing of public money had ever been expended except in the public service?
Sir J. Grahamdid not hesitate at once to answer the question. The hon. Baronet asked whether he (Sir J. Graham) was of opinion, after the investigation of the subject that had been carried on under his direction, whether in the Admiralty, the Navy Board, of which the hon. Baronet was at the head, and the Victualling Office, any portion of the money voted by that House for the public service had been applied to other uses? He answered at once, that decidedly no money had been so appropriated by the members of the different departments referred to. The hon. Baronet then went a step further, and asked him whether he thought any of the public money had been improperly expended by these Boards? With that frankness and candour for which the hon. Baronet had the kindness to give him credit, he would state—he was bound to state—his real opinion, which was, that he did think an improper use had been made of the money, inasmuch as some of the sums voted by that House, to be applied to particular purposes, had been applied to purposes of an entirely different kind. He thought that such an application of the public money opened a door to great abuses, and that if great abuses had not been committed, at least, the system was liable to produce them. He, having discovered this practice, had thought it his duty to bring the matter under the notice of that House. He did not mean to inculpate any one. He repeated, that these monies had not been applied to the use of any one individual, that he had not accused any one of malversation, but of misappropriation of these monies, proceeding from an error of judgment; and from the usages of ancient practices, which had long continued unchecked, but which became daily more and more dangerous, from the excess to which these applications might be carried. Certainly, without any pretence for saying there had been any malversation, there had been an extensive misappropriation of the public money; he had, therefore, thought it his duty to put a check upon the practice at present, and to take ample precautions against its future recurrence. If he had not decidedly entertained the opinion he had just expressed, it would have been hardly possible that he, in his situation, could have had to answer

953
the hon. Baronet in his situation, who was still one of his colleagues in the Navy Department, and who was at this moment still holding the office of Comptroller of the Navy.
Sir B. Martinadmitted fully the truth of what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet, as to the expenditure of the public money on objects for which it had not been specifically voted; but he wished to observe, that that had been the practice of the service for a long time past, and that the custom had always been to keep up a greater number of men than had been voted. It had also been the practice to take the sums stated in the Estimate as the gross sum that would be applicable to all the purposes of the Navy Department. That practice had received the sanction and support of Grenville, of Fox, of North, and of Welbore Ellis; and he would venture to say, that, do what they might, the practice must still continue, unless that House voted such ample sums as would be sufficient to meet all exigencies. He had proofs in his possession to establish the truth of his opinion on that point, but he would not trouble the House with them at that moment. He repeated, that though a different practice might be now adopted, it could not long continue. The House might make the Appropriation Act one day, and a gale the next might blow it into atoms. He would only add, that what had been done by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, had been done by all preceding First Lords of the Admiralty, whether Whig or Tory.
Sir J. Grahamthought this was not a convenient opportunity for discussion upon measures he had adopted with reference to this subject; and it was hardly decorous for him to enter into the discussion with the gallant Admiral, who certainly had produced the authority of great names, but who in his statement had omitted one most important feature of the case, namely, that with respect to this subject there had been a complete change of the law in the year 1798, when a new form of the Appropriation Act was adopted, so that all the practice and all the authorities of previous Lords of the Admiralty went for nothing. He did admit, that with respect to the repair of ships, an estimate was still but an estimate, and might fail in being correct; but he contended, that when through particular circumstances, it did fail in correctness, it was due to the Commons of
954
England, that there should be no concealment; that nothing should be kept back, but that, foreseeing the necessity of making a heavier charge than before, that necessity should be frankly and truly stated. They might make the best of the matter, but he repeated, that it was due to the Commons of England to let them know the exact appropriation of the money they had voted, and that had not been the practice for the last four or five years. He had before mentioned the unauthorised expenditure of public money at Weovel, and at other places, and he would now refer to two other cases of the same sort that he had recently discovered. The first of these was the erection of the mills at Deptford, which were connected with the manufactures going on in the Victualing Yards there. The erection of these mills was commenced in the year 1826, and was finished in 1827, and the cost was 76,237 l. The whole sum voted by Parliament for these buildings was 8,000 l. The other case was that of the Naval Hospital at Chatham, which was likewise commenced in 1826, and finished in 1827. That erection cost 61,659 l., and only 7,000 l. had been voted for it. He was prepared at the proper time to go into the discussion of this subject upon all the grounds connected with it; and when he did so—he was sure if that House was -not lost to all sense of what was due to its own dignity—he was sure that they would take care that such practices as those to which he had referred should not be repeated.
Sir G. Clerksaid, it had always been the wish of the Lords of the Admiralty so to frame the Estimates that they should not be likely to exceed the sums that might be wanted. It was impossible to check the expenditure in the manner supposed by the right hon. Baronet, for, after it had been ordered, the details of that expenditure never came again under the notice of the Board of Admiralty, nor had they till very lately the means of knowing how the money had been expended. Ships were generally three years on a foreign station; they were then ordered home, and others were sent out to relieve them. Between the time of the home ships getting out and the ships on the foreign station coming home, a double expense of wages arose, and as the number of ships thus relieved was not the same in every year, it became impossible always to be aware of the exact amount that would be required for that

955
branch of the service. He was not a little astonished when he heard the hon. members for Middlesex and the Queen's County express their surprise at the discovery that the money voted for the purchase of timber should have been applied in the payment of wages. That application took place in 1827, and under peculiar circumstances. The expenses of that year were greater than had been anticipated. A number of men were sent in ships to the Tagus; and as it was impossible to leave the coasts of Kent and Sussex unprotected, a greater number of men was employed, and the amount of money required for wages was greater than had been anticipated. Up to the year 1829, the rate of wages had been fixed at 2l. 9s. per month. The amount too was increased by the length of time our squadron was obliged to remain abroad. That was not the amount of wages of particular men, but it was the average. In the year 1829, however, on account of the deficiency of the sum voted for wages in the preceding "years, the Government were compelled to apply to the House for a Vote, calculated at 2l. 12 s. per month. He (Sir G. Clerk) then stated that on a former occasion the deficiency of wages was made up from the surplus arising from the sale of stores. The recent surprise of the hon. Members was therefore not easily to be accounted for. What was the result of the increase of the estimate of the wages for 1829? Why, this; that in that year the difference between the estimate and the expenditure only amounted to 25 l. In 1827 there was 33,000 men employed, and the wages amounted to 191,000 l. more than the sum voted for them. The aggregate of the excess of the expenditure over the estimate in that and the two following-years, owing to the peculiar circumstances he had stated, amounted to 404,000 l.; but, during the same period, the money expended in timber was nearly 1,000,000 l. less than had been voted. So that in the end the country lost nothing through the system to which the right hon. Baronet objected. Besides this, the Admiralty had nothing to do with the payment of wages, which was under the immediate control of the Navy Board. With respect to the direction of expenditure upon public works connected with the Victualling Board, he believed it would be found that, having surplus money in their hands, they expended that money on works which the
956
Admiralty and that House had successively sanctioned. After any works had received the sanction of the Admiralty and of Parliament, it was left to the particular department to which they related to carry them into execution, and on that department depended the question of how soon the works were to be finished, or how long they were to be delayed. The Government, anxious as much as possible to keep down the annual expenditure, desired that no works which were not absolutely necessary might be pressed forward; and some public works had therefore gone on slowly, in order that the expenditure for the particular year might be kept down. It would frequently be consistent with good economy to proceed more rapidly with these works; but the wish of the Government, he had before stated, restrained the particular department from proceeding with them very rapidly. With respect to the works at Weovel, he would just mention one circumstance. When it was stated to the Treasury that the new buildings required at that place might be erected by the money that would be obtained from the sale of the materials of the old and useless buildings there, authority was given for the department to go on with those works. The whole of the expenditure stated to be necessary was 50,000 l.; and the old buildings when sold produced nearly that sum. He found that a sum of 80,000 l. had been paid for the wharf wall, and other works and repairs, since the right hon. Baronet had come into office. Surely, if the right hon. Baronet wished to claim the merit of consistency, he ought to have refused to pay the money which had been expended on works undertaken without authority of Parliament. He was prepared to admit, that that caution, which the right hon. Baronet wished to introduce into the department with which he was connected, might in, some instances, be beneficial. As far as the late Board of Admiralty was concerned, he could assure the House that the members of that Board desired nothing more than that the strictest scrutiny should be instituted into the manner in which the public money had been expended. He should consider it a personal obligation to any hon. Member who would move for papers that would lead to a full inquiry.
Lord Althorpsuggested that the hour was passed which had been fixed for entering upon the subject of the Civil List. As the hon. Baronet had had the opportunity

957
of making his explanation, perhaps the House would consider that sufficient.
The House resumed.

OUTFIT FOR THE QUEEN.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Civil List.
Sir T. Freemantlesaid, that before the Speaker left the Chair, he wished to call the attention of the House to a subject immediately connected with the Civil List. It had been the original intention of the late Ministers to propose the grant of 50,000 l. to her present Majesty for her outfit; but it seemed, that in a communication on the subject with the King, his Majesty had expressed his gracious determination not to accept that or any other sum for such a purpose. He could not think it right that the House should acquiesce in any such arrangement; and the country was not come to such a pass, that it was not able to make her Majesty the same allowance that had been given to other Queens. Since the date when it was said that his Majesty had refused a sum for the outfit of the Queen, it had been stated on competent authority, that the Revenue had increased so much, that there could be no objection to the grant on the ground of financial difficulty. He was, however of opinion, that if Ministers were obliged to borrow the money, they ought to press the grant upon his Majesty. The sum of 50,000 l. had been given to Queen Charlotte— 100,000 l. to the late Queen—and a very large sum to the Princess of Wales— and it was not fit that her Majesty should be placed in a situation where she must incur debts. In twelve months the House might be called upon to make good the deficiencies it had itself occasioned by ill-judged parsimony. He threw out these remarks for the consideration of the House, and, if he were supported, he was ready to take its sense upon the question. He begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he was disposed, under the altered circumstances, to alter his views regarding the vote for the outfit of the Queen?
Lord Althorpobserved, that the sum proposed to his Majesty had been 50,000 l. but even 25,000 l. had been refused, with that consideration and generosity which distinguished the present King, and endeared him to all his subjects. Her Majesty wished that no proposition of the kind
958
should be made to the House, and he did not, therefore, feel himself justified in deviating from the course he had already adopted.
An Hon. Member An Hon. Member expressed his opinion that it ill became the Representatives of a great nation not to make a grant which he was persuaded was necessary almost for the personal comfort of her Majesty. It was impossible to go too far in supplicating his Majesty to accept the grant.
Mr. Huntthought, that the King had done himself the highest honour in the course he had taken, and he was sure that he had raised himself in the opinion and established himself in the affections of his people. He could not conceive why this question was now renewed, unless the hon. Members who revived it were desirous of withdrawing from the King and Queen some portion of the just popularity they had acquired. If the Aristocracy was disposed to give the Queen a large sum, he should of course not object; but he never would consent that the money should be taken from the pockets of the people.
Mr. Littletonwas sure that this question, on which there was a strong feeling, would not be made a party matter. The country felt the deepest gratitude to her Majesty, for the admirable character she had maintained; and he agreed that it did not become the Representatives of a great, and he would say an opulent country, to refuse 25,000 l.; particularly as he thought that her Majesty must have already incurred debts to that amount.
Mr. Humecould not refrain from expressing his utter surprise at the introduction of this subject. He must say, that he thought it looked very like bidding for the Royal favour, as if the hon. Members had been set on. He did not assert that it was so, but that it looked like it, [no, no.] Surely he might be allowed to think, and to state what he thought. The question seemed brought forward only to embarrass the King's Ministers. If not, why was it not introduced when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward the Civil List without any such item? He was sorry that the hon. member for Staffordshire had lent himself to such an attempt.
Mr. O'Connellfully concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex, and most decidedly objected to the grant of one shilling more of the public money than even the last Administration thought necessary.
Mr. Curteisexpressed his utter astonish-

959
ment at the proposition of forcing; public money upon their Majesties; in the name of his constituents and of the country at large, he protested against such an outrageous proposition. He had at that moment, in his hand a Petition from between 400 and 500 persons, complaining of the bitterest distress. Surely the present was a time when Ministers ought to be backed whenever they were inclined to make reductions, and in that course he would do his utmost, not only to back them, but to urge them forward. The country was indebted to his Majesty for making the sacrifice, and he was confident that Ministers knew too well what they owed to the country to listen to such a proposition.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.

CIVIL LIST.
Lord Althorpsaid, that before he proceeded with the subject to which the Order of that Day referred, he could not help adverting to the short discussion which had just taken place. The fact was, that in refusing the proposition for an outfit for her Majesty, his Majesty had only acted in accordance with that generous line of conduct which he had followed since his accession to the Throne; that in doing so he had manifested that kind attention which he had always paid to the wants and wishes of his people, and it might be truly said, that his Majesty had proved himself by that, as well as by every other act of his life, entitled to their gratitude and affection. It was to his Majesty solely that the obligation for the sacrifice which had been made in this instance was due. He wished to state distinctly, that it wars to his Majesty's generosity and kindness that the people were indebted for the refusal of the proposition for an outfit. He thought it necessary to state distinctly, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member for Sussex, that neither to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, nor to his Majesty's present Ministers, belonged any of the merit of that part of the arrangement; it was solely and entirely attributable to his Majesty himself. To render the Resolution intelligible which he was about to propose, he would first state the alterations which he had suggested in the plan of the Civil List. The first alteration was one of principle: it was the withdrawing from the account of the Civil List all expenses not
960
immediately applicable to the dignity of the Crown, and to the household of his Majesty. In former times the Civil List had applied to the whole of the Civil expenditure of the country. By degrees, and even before the time of Mr. Burke, but especially in the year 1782, a large proportion of the regular public expenditure had been withdrawn from the Civil List, and carried to other heads of the public account. It was his opinion, that none of the regular expenses of the State ought ever to appear upon the Civil List, in as much as they ought to be under the constant and vigilant control of Parliament, and ought not to be voted permanently at the commencement of each reign. The other alterations of the Civil List which he had had the honour of proposing in the month of November last, consisted principally in a reduction of the amount of the pensions, and in a different mode of stating them. The amount of the pensions upon the Civil List, chargeable upon England, Scotland, and Ireland, had been 154,000 l., and an attempt had been made to reduce them to 140,000 l. He had thought it his duty to propose a reduction of the total amount of these pensions to 75,000 l. and this sum was to include all pensions payable upon the Civil List voted in lieu of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. In making up to the Crown a grant in lieu of its hereditary revenue, it was necessary to explain, that the Crown would have felt itself called upon to pay these pensions out of its hereditary revenue had they not been otherwise provided for by a vote of Parliament. It would be difficult for the House to give separate pensions to every individual to whom the Crown might wish to show its favours. Upon this ground alone, even if there were no others, he should hold that it was right and proper that a certain class and amount of pensions should be placed upon the Civil List. There had, however, been different modes suggested of doing this. One proposition had been, to make a large addition to the Privy Purse, which would enable the Crown to bestow pensions without the advice or concurrence of its confidential servants. He had always thought this to be a most unconstitutional and inexpedient proposition, and one that might lead and probably would frequently lead to great inconvenience, and to much public mischief; for nothing could be so essential to the good Government of the

961
country as that the Crown should not act in such matters but through the medium of its constitutional and responsible advisers. Times had existed in which the Crown had not acted quite cordially with its Ministers and if this power of granting pensions were left entirely to the Crown, it might possibly be delegated to irresponsible and bad persons. All such pensions ought to be given upon the advice of responsible persons, in accordance with the great doctrine of the Constitution, that no Sovereign ought to do any thing but upon the advice of a known and responsible Minister. Such were the points in which the Civil List, as he had originally proposed it, differed from all former Civil Lists. This Civil List had been referred to a Select Committee of that House, and in the consideration which the committee had given to it, it was necessary to state, that the committee had not been invested with any power to call upon persons to give their evidence before it, or to require the production of papers. He apprehended that the cause of this had been, that the House was not willing that the expenses of his Majesty should be examined into in detail, and certainly he would say, it was not consistent with the respect due to his Majesty to examine into the detail of those expenses of his household which applied to him in his character as an individual. Though the Committee had not been invested with the power to examine witnesses or call for papers, questions were asked by it to a certain extent, and to that extent, in giving the answers, he had felt himself responsible. The questions which had been put could be answered only by him, and only to the extent that he thought they should be answered; therefore he was in every respect responsible upon this point. He should take it upon himself to say, that although there had been no objection to the Committee's inquiring into that part of the expenditure which applied to the Officers of State, and to the Officers of the Household, there was decidedly an objection to its going into any examination of that part of it which related to the immediate service of his Majesty. The Committee did examine into different offices of the household. In the first class, the Committee took up the subject of the Privy Purse, and especially of that of her Majesty the Queen. They had no means of estimating what these expenses actually were. It was absolutely impossible for the
962
Committee to go into the details of such a subject, and all, therefore, that the Committee could do was, to proceed carefully upon the ground of precedents. They found that the sum of 60,000 l. had been granted to his Majesty for so long a period as the expenses of the Privy Purse, that it was a precedent to be followed with propriety. They found likewise that 50,000 l. per annum had been granted for the Privy purse of the Queen Consort of George 2nd, and that the same sum had been granted to the Queen of George 3rd, in the second year after her marriage, and that at a later period the vote had been increased to the amount of 58,000 l. The Committee therefore had decided, that it would be expedient to recommend that the House should grant to their Majesties, for the Privy Purse, the sum of 110,000 l. In the second class the Committee went into the examination of the different offices of the Household, and here some reductions had been thought proper by the Committee. The proposition was for the grant of 130,300 l. and the Committee had reported that 119,344 l. 10 s. would be sufficient—making a diminution of 10,955 l. 10 s. It was proposed that a few offices should be reduced. The salary of the Lord Chamberlain was to be lowered from 3,085 l. to 2,000 l.and reductions of various amounts were to be made in the amounts annually given to the Vice-Chamberlain, the Groom of the Stole, the Lords and Grooms of the Bed Chamber, the Captain and Board of Gentlemen Pensioners, the Captain and Yeomen of the Guard, four Physicians, two Surgeons, and the Usher of the Black Rod; those reductions amounted, in the whole, to 7,426 l. In the Lord Steward's Department the reductions only amounted to 1,494 l. 10 s. including the Lord Steward, the Treasurer of the Household, the Comptroller of the Household, and the Secretary to the Lord Steward. In the department of the Master of the Horse, the reductions recommended amounted to 2,035 l. including the salary of the Master of the Horse, which was to be lowered from 3,350 l. to 2,500 l. a year, with other diminutions in payments to the Chief Equerry, the four Equerries, four Pages of Honour, the Veterinary Surgeon, and the Equerry of the Crown Stables. The third class applied to the expenses of the departments of the Household, which included all money laid out in the purchase of different necessaries

963
and the Committee having considered the estimates of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), as well as those which he (Lord Althorp) had laid before them, and having given to both the closest examination, they did not think it possible for the King to live, as his Majesty was now living, in the hospitality in which he was pleased to indulge, and which every man in the country must wish him to continue, under the sum that had hitherto been granted. No reduction in this respect could be made without the danger, and even the certainty, of the Civil List getting into debt. Under the fourth class of the Civil List, the Committee had recommended that the small sum of 500 l. should be deducted from the Royal Bounty for the reward of special services, and that the sum of 74 l., paid to the Arabic Professor should not appear upon the Civil List. The fifth class included the head of Pensions which were recommended to be reduced from 140,000 l. to 75,000 l. per annum. These were the total of the Estimates that were proposed, by command of his Majesty, to be granted in lieu of the hereditary revenue of the Crown. The Government had recommended a total sum of 510,000 l. to be given as the amount of the Civil List; but the Committee, thinking that a small reduction might be made, had thought proper to recommend a grant of 498,470 l. 10 s. per annum. The reductions which the Committee had recommended were of a very trifling amount, indeed of so trifling an amount, that they could not form any saving to be of service to the country. He confessed that he thought that the making of such reductions as these would be treating his Majesty in a way that he did not think that the country wished his Majesty to be treated in. He had not felt himself justified in proposing to the House the reductions which the Committee had recommended. He took the responsibility upon himself, for from the mode in which his Majesty had conducted himself, the people did not wish to have reductions made from the Civil List which could be of no benefit to the country. He should therefore propose a vote of 510,000 l. Upon the grounds that he had stated, he should feel himself fully justified in putting that vote to the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving, "That it is the opinion of this Committee that, for the support of the dignity of the Crown, and to defray the
964
expenses of his Majesty's Household, there be granted to his Majesty the nett yearly revenue of 510,00 l. commencing from the day of the demise of his late Majesty, and that the said sum be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. Humeconcurred with the noble Lord, that whatever was necessary for the support of the comfort of his Majesty, and of the dignity of his Crown, the House ought to be prepared to grant. Although the noble Lord seemed to consider 10,000 l. or 12,000 l. a saving of no importance, he should say, that in point of principle, it was a saving of great consequence to the country, and to the character of his Majesty's Government. Although he had not agreed with the Committee upon many principal points, he hoped that no Gentleman could say that he was not disposed to accede to whatever was likely to conduce to the comfort of his Majesty, and to the honour and dignity of his Crown. But upon this subject he had drawn a line, and upon this he was anxious that the House should decide. He was willing that the House should give all that was necessary, but nothing more. In a sum of half a million, the saving of 12,000 l. might be considered as immaterial; but he should maintain, that if only 10 l. could be saved, the principle ought to regulate the proceedings of that House. No sovereign had a right to expect to be treated more liberally by the public than his present Majesty. Whilst he was manifesting his generous sympathy with the wants and wishes of his subjects, they were bound to yield their opinions, and to meet what might appear to him to be necessary to support the comfort and uphold the dignity of the situation in which he was placed. He, however, felt anxious to take from the Civil List what, by the unanimous opinion, or at least the opinion of a very considerable majority, of the Committee, was thought to be superfluous, after ten or fifteen days' deliberation. As regarded the sum of 110,000 l. for the Privy Purse, he felt quite satisfied that less than such an amount could not meet the fair and reasonable wants of his Majesty. Although this might appear to be a very large sum when compared to small incomes, yet when reference was made to the situation of their Majesties, he was quite prepared to say, that the sum of 110,000 l. was nothing more than their Majesties were entitled to receive from the Commons of England.

965
The next division of the Civil List amounted to 130,300 l., and the Committee proposed to take off ll,000 l. This class comprised the salaries of the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, and other great officers of the Household. In deducting; from this fund, nothing would be taken from the comfort of his Majesty, but only from the receipts of the high-bred Officers of State. In a case where economy was to be promoted, he had a right to ask the House to attend to what the Committees had done. The Lord Steward received a salary of 2,436 l. per annum, and it was proposed to reduce it to 2,000 l. a year. The Committee pro- posed to reduce the salaries of the Treasurer and Comptroller from 904 l. a year each, to 500 l., and the Secretary from 1,000 l. to 750 l. The Lord Chamberlain was an officer of rank, and his duties were important, but he possessed great honours, and enjoyed extensive patronage, and the Committee had thought that his salary should be reduced from 3,085 l. to 2,000 l. a year. As these officers were subject to expenses in the performance of their duty, it was right that the public should pay them. In no other part of the world than England did such dignified officers of State receive salaries, but they performed their duties as honorary distinctions. The Committee had acted liberally towards the officers, and with due economy towards the public. The Committee had reduced the Vice-chamberlain's salary from 2,000 l. to 1,500 l. a year, and that of the Master of the Horse from 3,300 l. to 2,500 l. per annum. The Chief Equerries were proposed to be reduced from 1,000 l. each to 750 l. These deductions, which amounted to 11,000 l., were not upon the half million, the total amount of the Civil List, but from the salaries of certain officers, and it made a difference equal to twenty per cent. He regretted that the noble Lord should treat a deduction of twenty per cent upon one head of service as a trifle unworthy his notice. The example of taking 20 l. per cent from the salaries of the higher officers ought to be followed with respect to inferior officers, who were receiving remuneration at the full war price of every thing, A sum of 8,229 l. would fall into the Civil List at the death of certain officers, whose services were already dispensed with. The sum of 13,450/l, the superannuation payments to the servants of his late Majesty, would fall in, and prove another acquisi-
966
tion to the officers of his Majesty's establishment. These sums would amount in all to 130,300 l., and he agreed that this sum, as it fell in, should revert to his Majesty. Ministers had said that they were anxious that a general review should take place of all salaries, so as to enable them to judge of how far their own salaries might be reduced, and from this to form a scale of reduction from the salaries of inferior persons. When the Committee upon Salaries made their report to the House, he supposed that the noble Lord would treat their economy as of little consequence, and advise the House not to attend to it. After accounts had been laid before a Committee, was the House to be told to pay no attention to the report of that Committee? He begged the noble Lord not to place the House in so awkward a situation. The Committee had decided upon the tradesmen's bills without going into any detail. Upon the fourth class he had differed very much from the Committee, for he could not conceive why any secret-service money should be placed at the disposal of his Majesty, when there was another annual vote of secret-service money to the extent of 50,000 l. He next objected to the charities upon the Civil List, for in disposing of these his Majesty knew no more about them than he did: they were disposed of by Ministers, and the effect was, to swell out the Civil List, and make it appear that his Majesty was receiving a larger sum than he actually did receive. Many of these charities he knew to be of the most exceptionable nature. Neither he nor the hon. member for Queen's County were present at the drawing up the report of the Committee, as neither of them concurred in it. Now he would ask any man, whether the charge for pensions added anything to the support of the dignity of the Crown? Certainly not; for that charge held out to the people, that a much greater sum than was necessary was wanted for the support of the dignity of the Crown. The sum taken was greater by 75,000 l. than the sum that was necessary. He was not called upon to state individual instances of abuses in the Pension List; but he took the matter upon the broad principle, which he defied any man to defend. On this ground it was his intention to propose a motion, the purport of which would be, that these pensions should not be borne on this Civil List, but that they should be transferred

967
to some other fund. If this were granted, he had no hesitation in stating, that it was his intention to propose, further, that no money should be paid on account of these pensions, until it was pointed out for what public services they had been granted. There could be no harm in this, for he was sure that it could not be considered that these pensions had been granted for a longer period than the life of the late King. Out of a sum of 1,937,836 l. which had been paid in Pensions, no less than 1,900,000 l. had been granted to individuals who had performed no public services whatever. The Pension List amounted to 150,000 l., and yet all that the noble Lord proposed to raise by the steam-tax was 75,000 l.; so that if the Pension List was removed, the noble Lord might get rid of any necessity to impose this tax, and save 75,000 l. into the bargain. However, he did not propose that the whole of the Pension List should be removed. If half of it were taken off, the noble Lord might withdraw his proposal for a very unpopular tax. Now, in this view of the case, how could it be said that the people had been relieved as much as it was possible to relieve them? He was sorry to have detained the House so long, but he thought that he should not have performed his duty as a member of the Committee, if he had not made this statement. He should propose, as an Amendment, that there be voted for his Majesty's Civil List the sum of 423,470 l. instead of 510,000 l. This Amendment would deduct from the vote proposed by the noble Lord, 75,000 l. for Pensions, and the 12,000 l. which the Committee had proposed to take off. These reductions would not be inconsistent with the terms of the vote proposed, for the sums which he wished to take off were not necessary for the personal comfort of the King, or for the support of the dignity of the Crown.
Sir Joseph Yorkesaid, that he would not detain the House two minutes. He protested against the hon. member for Middlesex using the name of the Sovereign in the way in which he had used it. The hon. Member, when he thought that the Sovereign had behaved like a good boy, declared that he had no objection to the grant; but when the hon. Member thought the King was a bad boy, he objected to the grant. Now he thought that this was very unfair. The grant was made to the Crown, not to the individual. He could
968
not help feeling, that the Committee was placed in the most inconsistent situation in which Gentlemen had ever yet found themselves. This Government came in with the pledge of the most unflinching economy, and the last Government went out because they were thought somewhat too prodigal. The Civil List was the particular point on which they went out. Then came the present Government, who referred the Civil List to a Committee; that Committee had made a report, and now down came the noble Lord, and, like all other Ministers, he had said to them—" I don't care two straws about the recommendations of the Committee." For his own part, he should vote for the recommendations of the Committee.
Sir G. Warrenderdid expect that the proposition of the Committee would have been agreed to, as the reductions suggested by the Committee took away nothing of what was necessary for the support of the dignity of the Crown, or the maintenance of the personal comfort of his Majesty. If this course were not adopted, he must say that the time and labour of the Committee would have been absolutely thrown away; and he, as one of the Committee, could not help feeling so. He was a friend to reduction, but he could not, on principle, bring his mind to say, that the pensions ought to be taken away; because he was sure, that custom had justified the opinion that those pensions were granted for the lives of the holders of them. He had no objection, however, to see the pensions removed from the Civil List.
Mr. Hume. — Well, that is all I ask.
Sir G. Warrenderbegged his hon. friend's pardon. His hon. friend's demand went much further. In a word, he was prepared to agree in the recommendations of the Committee, although, at the same time, he could not conceal his fear that the somewhat more than inconvenient consequence— namely, the Crown incurring debt—might result from those recommendations being carried into effect.
Mr. Phillpottswas understood to say, that he did not think that any Minister, however honest, could do full justice to the country without endangering some of the leading interests upon which his Administration must depend. He thought that the Pension List was within this principle. To the Pension List many noble families had been in the habit of resorting, to obtain support for their needy families

969
and connexions,—and no Minister, unaided by the declared sense of that House, would be found bold enough to encounter the hostility of those noble personages, by voluntarily surrendering a power on which so great an influence necessarily depended. The pensions hitherto charged on the Civil List might be divided into two classes—the one consisting of rewards or remunerations to individuals for services performed; the other, of provisions for favoured or distressed individuals. Against the first of the classes it was far from his wish to raise an objection. Whenever services had been rendered to the country by any individual, the people were ready to evince their gratitude, and no reward which could be suggested, within the bounds of reason, was ever deemed excessive. Whether the names of the individuals who had distinguished themselves should be privately placed on the Pension List, as an act of mere Ministerial arrangement, or should be publicly recorded in the Votes of this House, in pursuance of a Message from his Majesty, was the only question as to pensions of that description. For himself he greatly preferred the latter mode, as more honourable to the individuals by whom services had been rendered, as well as infinitely more satisfactory to the feelings of the people. On this ground, and on this ground alone, he begged leave to suggest, that pensions for services performed should hereafter be granted only under the authority of a vote of that House, founded on a Message from the King, and that they should be charged on the Consolidated Fund, without being mixed up or blended as they had been with the expenses of the Civil List. With respect to the other class of pensions, to favoured or distressed individuals, the system which had hitherto prevailed appeared to him so open to abuse, that he trusted the House would pardon him for entering into a few details. Though the pensions were charged on a fund which always expired on the demise of the Crown, yet the uniform course had been, to continue them during the lives of the respective grantees. Such a system had led to the greatest enormities. Many of the persons whose names were placed on the Pension List, might have been extremely proper objects of compassion at the time when their pensions were granted, but had since acceded to large possessions and abundant wealth. To continue to persons so circumstanced pen-
970
sions originally intended as a relief to distressed objects, was, in his view, alike disgraceful to the Legislature who connived at so glaring an impropriety, and to the individuals who availed themselves of so unreasonable an indulgence. Yet they saw the wealthy heads of some of our most illustrious families condescend to receive, or suffer their nearest relatives to retain, the pittances so granted. The widows and daughters of many needy Peers who were generously relieved with pensions while objects of distress, still continued to claim their pensions, though they were now become the wives of some of our most wealthy commoners. It would be invidious to select names, but there was no hon. Gentleman who heard him who would feel difficulty in pointing out individuals by whom the bounty of their Sovereign was thus grossly abused. The hon. Member concluded by moving "That all existing Pensions heretofore charged on the Civil List, shall be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. "That no Pensions shall hereafter be charged on the Civil List; and that in lieu of the power to charge Pensions on the Civil List, heretofore exercised by the Crown, the annual sum of 10,000 l. shall be added to his Majesty's Privy Purse, to be applied in such manner as his Majesty shall, from time to time, be pleased to direct, without any control." On the Chairman intimating to the hon. Member that his Motion was premature while there was another Amendment undisposed of, he withdrew it.
Mr. Bankessaid, it was with extreme regret that he found the vote now proposed was not in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. He admitted that the saving proposed by the Committee was small in amount; but he would ask, was it small in principle? Surely, when the great principle which it recognized was considered, it ought not to be despised? If the Committee could not bring large savings before the House, assuredly they could appeal to the candour of the House to allow them the merit of having occupied themselves laboriously with this subject. At this time, when the public were taught to look upon that House with suspicion, when they were described, however falsely, as having no feeling for the interests of the people,— it was their duty not to accede to any suggestion which might tend to support that delusion. For himself, he would plainly say, that the House, as it was at

971
present constituted, appeared to him to be perfectly adequate to the discharge of all the duties which devolved upon it. He was by no means opposed to a just economical Reform; and he would not object to take the sense of the House with respect to the reduction from this grant of 12,000 l.
Lord Althorpwas a good deal surprised at the effort which was made to reduce so very small a sum in the vote which was proposed for the first class of his Majesty's expenditure. The hon. member for Middlesex had gone through all the different items on which he conceived a total amount of reduction ought to be made. It was argued, as if the object of the Committee was to continue all the salaries at the rate at which they stood. That, however, was not the proposition before the House. The proposition simply was, "Will you give 510,000 l. for the support of the King's Household?" and those who made that proposition were called on to reduce that sum by 12,000 l. Now, it should be observed, when this principle of reduction was in this instance advocated, that there was an evident distinction between public officers who were examined before the Committee, and those officers who were connected with the Household of his Majesty. It was for his Majesty, in the latter case, acting under the advice of his Minister, to say what provision he would make for his servants. It. did not follow that that provision would be the same as at present, if the grant were allowed. They were not now, it ought to be observed, considering the amount of salary that should be granted to individual officers; but they were deliberating on the amount of the Civil List to be granted to his Majesty. When they considered the duties of the Lord Chamberlain, as compared with the duties of other officers, they might perhaps think that the Lord Chamberlain's salary stood too high. But the question was, whether, on that account, they would think it proper and fitting to call for a reduction on the gross sum of 510,000 l. of so trifling a portion of it as 12,000 l. Such a course, on such an occasion, was, he believed never taken before. If, after the great and strenuous efforts which had been made by the Committee to examine into the whole of the Civil List, it had been found possible that any very-large amount of saving could have been effected, then, undoubtedly, this proposition would not have been brought forward.
972
But, when the amount of saving there proposed was so very small, he hardly thought it worth while to introduce it. With respect to the reduction of the salaries paid to officers of the Crown, which had been recommended by the Committee, a reduction would take place. He did not know whether the salaries of the Lord Chamberlain and of the Lord Steward would be reduced to the sums proposed by the Committee, nor did he mean to say, that they would not be reduced to that extent; but the proposition would be laid before his Majesty, and he would state what he conceived those salaries ought to be. It did not, as he had before observed, follow, because 510,000 l., was voted for the Civil List, that therefore those salaries should continue. As to the sum of 75,000 l. for pensions, he did not consider that it was by any means too much. He had conceived it to be his duty, consistently with what he owed to the country and to the Crown, to lay the whole proposition before the House.
Mr. Goulburnsupported the proposition of Lord Althorp. He contended, that that was not the time for opposing the grant. The more regular way would be, at the proper period, to object to any of the separate items, instead of opposing the gross sum called for as necessary for the support of his Majesty's Household. With respect to the sum of 75,000 l. for pensions, it appeared that the sum itself was not objected to; but the question was, whether it should be placed on one fund or another? As to the effort made for the reduction of salaries in the Committee, it had nothing to do with the present question. The proposition was not now, to continue salaries to the Lord Chamberlain or the Lord Steward—it was, to grant a certain allowance to his Majesty; and, doubtless, when the salaries referred to came to be examined, they would be reduced as others were. It should be observed, that on all former occasions, when the maintenance of the royal establishment was brought before Parliament, the Crown had great hereditary revenues to meet its expenses: but this was the first instance in which the Crown had deprived itself of the necessary aids; and it became the duty of Parliament to the Monarchy, and to the country, to make good that deficit, and to provide for the extraordinary expenditure of the Crown.
Mr. R. Gordonwas happy to find the

973
right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) returning good for evil, in his support of this Motion, since it was upon a proposition closely connected with the present question that he had been obliged to quit office. He was of opinion, however, that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not a good one, for he seemed to think that the sum proposed to be deducted should be allowed to remain, as a sort of contingent fund. The hon. Gentleman referred to several passages from the report of the Committee, and argued, that various propositions for reductions which were made in the Committee ought to have been carried. He thought that the House ought not to increase the revenue of the Crown, because the King had granted the great question of Reform, a question which he had as much at heart as any man,—ay, even as his Majesty's Ministers, who had brought it forward.
Mr. Baringsaid, that he was inclined to place his confidence in his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, placing that confidence in him, he must say, that he did not think it prudent to make the reduction which had been recommended by the Committee. When he took into his consideration the amount of this sum, he could not help feeling that it was not incumbent to make this reduction, especially when it was to trench upon the revenue of a Sovereign who was the object of admiration of all his subjects, from one end of the country to the other. He felt that it would be most ungracious in the House to accede to the retrenchment which was now proposed.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the Government, in supporting this amount of Civil List, was acting in direct contradiction to the principles of economy upon which they had come into office. If this reduction of 12,000 l. were likely to affect the comforts of his Majesty in the slightest degree, he would be one of the last men in the House to vote for it; but it would do no such thing. It would only reduce the salaries of the Lord Chamberlain, and of other high Officers of State, who did not, or at least who ought not, to require any such emoluments. This sum of 12,000 l. was twice the amount of the salary paid to the President of the United States of America [cries of "Oh, oh."]. Gentlemen might cry Oh! oh! as long as they pleased, but the fact which he had just stated was undeniable. He appealed to the members of his
974
Majesty's Government personally, and asked them, whether they would oppose the recommendation of a Select Committee which they had themselves appointed, and which they had gained by a vote of the House which had turned their predecessors out of office [loud coughing]. He heard one Gentleman coughing most loudly; it was clear that he had gone far beyond his lozenge-box. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer), who merely wished to get him into the same scrape which had turned his colleagues out of power.
Colonel Daviesstated, that it was his intention to support the proposition for the retrenchment.
Sir G. Warrenderwas of opinion, that the sum which it was now proposed to vote was not too much, but too little, for the just support of his Majesty's dignity.
Mr. R. Palmerthought, that the Committee had sat for very little purpose, if the House would not second the recommendation which it had made. He suggested that this sum of 10,500 l. should be added to the third class of expenses in the Civil List.
Mr. Stanleyrose for the purpose of noticing an observation which had fallen from the hon. member for Preston. The hon. Member had asked, what was the principle on which the present Ministry had come into office, and had wished to have it understood, that the question then before the House was, whether a Republican or Monarchical form of Government was the cheapest.
Mr. Huntdenied, that he had put the question in anything like that shape to the House.
Mr. Stanleywished to know, if that was not the meaning of the hon. member for Preston, what was his meaning when he was talking about this sum, 12,000 l., being twice the amount of the salary paid to the President of the United States. God forbid that they should ever come to discuss in that House, whether they should have a Monarchical or a Republican form of Government, on the mere consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence. The blessings which we enjoyed under our Monarchical Government would be cheaply purchased, even by paying annually the difference between 6,000 l. and 510,000 l.

975
He admitted that the question on which the late Administration had been turned out was a question as to the appointment of a Select Committee. But what was that Select Committee for? The members of his Majesty's present Government had, when in Opposition, objected to having a million of money granted to the Crown, and placed beyond the control of Parliament; and it was upon the propriety of that objection, that the House had divided, when the late Government refused to refer the Estimates of the Civil List to the investigation of a Select Committee. The present Government had acted up to the principles which its members had professed when in Opposition. They had withdrawn a large sum from the hands of the Crown, and had placed it under the direct control of Parliament; and by so doing had taken the best and most effectual mode of reducing the amount of the Civil List. Besides, when it was said that the present Government had made no reduction in the amount of the Civil List, he would ask the House whether they had not made some diminution in the Pension List? Had there not been a saving of nearly half the amount of that List? Was it to be said, that when there was a contingent reduction of 75,000 l. a-year in pensions, that no reduction had been made or contemplated? The late Administration had proposed a Civil List on as low an Estimate as they well could, if credit were to be given to their professions. The present Administration had proposed a Civil List on an Estimate still lower, and the Committee now came forward with a Report, telling the House that the utmost reduction which they could make upon that Estimate, without leaving a Contingency Fund, was 12,000 l. When so poor a modification as 12,000 l. was made on so large a sum as 510,000 l., he could not help thinking that it would be an insult to his Majesty to agree to such a modification.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, that in the speech which he had just made, he had waived all allusion to questions which were in controversy between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself; but when he took that line of argument, he did expect that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman would have equally avoided all controversial questions. He denied that any large saving had been made by the present Government in the
976
Civil List Estimates. Indeed, the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer had, with his usual candour, admitted, on a former occasion, that all the saving which he had been able to make was not more than 20,000 l. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was fair to say that the Civil List of the late Government was 1,000,000 l., and that the Civil List of the present Government was only 500,000 l.? He was prepared to contend, that the difference of amount between the noble Lord's estimate of the Civil List and his own was very trifling indeed.
Mr. Ricecontended, that his hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) had fallen into very considerable mistakes on this subject. He denied, that the proposition now brought forward by the present Government was the same as that which had been brought forward by the late Government. He considered the question of money to be a mere secondary consideration, compared with the important point of bringing the amount of the Civil List under the control of Parliament.
Colonel Daviessaid, he should continue to oppose the proposed increase of 10,000 l., which he conceived would only go into the pocket of the Duke of Devonshire.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that allusion having been made, in the course of the discussion, to the member for Queen's County (Sir Henry Parnell), he had that hon. Baronet's authority to state, that he had taken no part in the drawing up of the Report of the Committee.
Mr. O' Connellconsidered the whole matter a mystification; and he called on the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) to state how he could justify the vote of 10,000 l., which was to be considered as a contingent sum, and not applicable to any-specific purpose.
Sir J. Grahamconsidered it highly necessary to vote this contingent sum, if it was so to be called; because, if the allowance to the Crown was pared down to the lowest possible rate, the Crown might get into debt, which would lead to the worst thing that could happen—the dependence of the Sovereign on that House.
Colonel Sibthorpconsidered the conduct of Ministers, with regard to the Civil List, perfectly consistent with the course they had pursued respecting the memorable Budget. He could not vote for the pro- posed contingent fund, unless he had a guarantee that it would not be applied in

977
payment of the salaries of the household officers.
Sir R. Inglissaid, the subject ought not to be considered as a political or party one, but as a compact between the House and the Crown. He believed, that if the amount of hereditary revenue sacrificed by the Sovereign were compared with the amount of the Civil List, it would be found that the nation had greatly benefitted by the proceeding.
Mr. Holme Sumnerwould vote for the sum recommended by the Committee.
Lord John Russellthought it best to agree to the whole vote, as proposed by the Government. He thought that so much confidence was due to the Sovereign on the Throne. There was a great difference between a Sovereign disposed to make every economical arrangement that was necessary, and to renounce any sum that might be considered improper, and a Sovereign who directed his Ministers to propose extravagant sums, which were beyond the means of the people to pay.
Sir M. W. Ridleydid not consider the House bound by the decision of the Committee; and considering the sum of 510,000 l. not too much for the Civil List, he should vote for the grant proposed by Ministers.
Mr. Humestated, that all he had heard induced him to persevere in his Motion. He would not, however, at that late hour of the night, press the question to a division; but would reserve to himself the right to do so on bringing up the Report.
The Resolution agreed to, without a division. The other Resolutions were postponed at the suggestion of Mr. Hume, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord AUCKLAND, the last Report from the National Vaccine Establishment; summary statements of the number of Persons charged with Criminal Offences, who were committed to the different Gaols of England and Wales for trial at the Assizes and Sessions held for the several Counties, Cities, Towns, and Liberties therein, during the last seven years, distinguishing the number in each year, and shewing the nature of the crimes, respectively, of which they were convicted, acquitted, and with which those were charged, against whom no bills were found, and who were not prosecuted; also, the sentences of those convicted, and the number executed of those who received sentence of death.
Petitions presented. In favour of Reform, by the Duke of GRAFTON, from Suffolk:—By Lord AUCKLAND, from Hereford:—By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Derby, Youghall, and Clapham:— By the Duke of Norfolk from Tuam:—By Lord KING, from Miles Platting (a suburb of Manchester), and various places in Scotland:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Hailsham:—By Earl GREY, from Hounslow, and other places:—By the Marquis of BUTE, from the County of Glamorgan. By Lord KING, from the Agricultural Associations of South Hams and Teignbridge; and from a Parish in Devonshire, for the Amendment of the Poorlaws. By the Duke of RICHMOND from the Apprentice Boys of Derry against a Repeal of the Union:—By Lord PLUNKETT, from Macroom, in the County of Cork, for such a Repeal. By Lord WHARNCLIFFS, from Rothwell, for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.

COUNTY OF DOWN PETITION —EXPLANATION.
The Marquis of Londonderrybelieved, that their Lordships were always kindly disposed towards any Member of that House, who was anxious to explain any misconception or misstatement in the public journals, respecting any thing he might have said. He trusted that the noble Earl (Grey) would be good enough to attend to the explanation he was about to make. It regarded an expression which was alleged to have fallen from him in animadverting last night upon the petition from the County of Down. Some of the public journals, not all of them, had said, that he had described some of the persons who had signed that petition as the lowest rabble in the County of Down. Now he most unequivocally denied, that he had used any such expression, and he was sure their Lordships would Feel for him, when he had had attributed to him an expression which, if he had used it, would prove him to be unworthy of that place in the esteem of the county which he and his family had always enjoyed. He had been born in that county, and was naturally much attached to it, and it was quite impossible that he should have cast such an imputation upon any of the freeholders of that county. He had not said that the petition was signed by the lowest rabble. What he had said was, that the petition was signed by the lowest freeholders, and this was very different from what had been attributed to him. Another point which he was anxious to explain, related to a most respectable individual — namely, Colonel Forde. He had not seen the petition, and he could not believe that it had been signed by that gentleman, after having been informed, as he had been, by letters from the County of Down, that the petition was signed by the lowest freeholders. Besides, he had read a speech of Colonel Forde's, in which Colonel Forde opposed the expediency of the meeting at which the petition was agreed to, and also objected to triennial Parliaments as being too short. A third point upon which he wished to explain was this. He held in his hand two requisitions for meetings in the County of Down. One called upon the Sheriff to convene the meeting at which the petition was agreed to, and it was signed, he was bound to say, by nine or ten most respectable individuals. In contradistinction to this, he had a requisi-
924
tion which called upon the High Sheriff to convene a meeting, for the purpose of agreeing upon an Address, congratulating the Lord Lieutenant on the firmness of his administration, and expressing their attachment to the Legislative Union, and to that Constitution under which the empire had enjoyed so many blessings. The signatures to this requisition contained, not the names of nine or ten most respectable persons, like the other requisition, but the name of every man of rank, and wealth, and respectability in the county. Such names not being attached to the other requisition, he had thought himself justified in stating, that the petition did not express the opinion of the rank, the wealth, and the respectability of the county.
Earl Greywas sure that their Lordships would always receive, as they had now received the address of the noble Marquis, with the greatest readiness, any statement which was made for the purpose of a noble Lord's relieving himself from the imputation of having used an expression which he might think injurious to him. He was glad the noble Marquis had had an opportunity of disclaiming an expression, which, as the noble Marquis said he had not used it, he (Earl Grey) was bound to conclude that he had laboured under a false impression last night, in attributing it to the noble Marquis. He certainly had repeated it, and, as he supposed, after the noble Marquis; he had answered it also; and yet he had not been corrected by the noble Marquis at the time. He must have laboured under another misapprehension also; for if he had supposed that the noble Marquis had merely said that the petition was signed by the lowest freeholders, he should certainly never have made to their Lordships the observation which he did make,—namely, that the petition was signed by 1,300 persons, every one of whom was either registered, or entitled to be registered, as a freeholder of 10 l. a year; for such, their Lordships were aware, were the lowest freeholders entitled to vote at elections in Ireland. It must be clear, then, to their Lordships, that he had misconceived what had fallen from the noble Marquis, and that he laboured under a wrong impression. As to the value of the petition, he left it to their Lordships to decide that matter. The noble Marquis had admitted that it was signed by many respectable persons; and as to the other point,—the address to the

925
Lord Lieutenant,—he could assure the noble Marquis, that no man rejoiced more to hear of it than he did. Allow him, however, to observe, that addressing the Lord Lieutenant upon his wise and spirited administration in Ireland, was by no means inconsistent with the sentiments contained in the petition in favour of Reform; nor did he think, because so many noble and respectable individuals had concurred in such an address, that their Lordships had a right to conceive, that they were opposed to a measure, which seemed to have been received with so much approbation by almost every class of the community. He had only to repeat, that in what he had said last night upon this part of the subject, he was under a misapprehension, which, it appeared by the explanation of the noble Marquis, he had shared in common with those through whose instrumentality the proceedings of that House were communicated to the public.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that the reason he had not explained last night was, that he felt great diffidence in addressing one syllable to their Lordships, after that most able and eloquent speech which they had heard from the noble Earl. He assured their Lordships, that to the best of his belief he had not used the expression "rabble," and if he had, he was most heartily sorry for it. As to the connection between the two requisitions, he took it to be this—the one spoke of the blessings of the Constitution. Now he was much afraid, that if this Reform Bill were to pass, those blessings would be seriously impaired, if not altogether destroyed.

TITHE MODUSES.
Lord Wharncliffegave notice, that he should on Monday next move for the returns which a noble kinsman of his had yesterday given notice for him of his intention to move for. He should at an earlier period have taken this means of bringing under the notice of their Lordships the Reform measure, if he had not been prevented by indisposition.
Earl Greyasked, if the noble Lord meant to move for the same Returns which were contained in his former notice; because, if so, it might be convenient to the noble Lord to know that there would be no objection to the Motion.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he should move for the same returns as had been before named, and that he had anticipated there
926
would be no objection to his motion. He had now to present to their Lordships a Petition, which he called their attention to with great pain. It was on the subject of tithes, and came from the owners and occupiers of lands of the parish of Cadoxton-juxta-Neath, in the county of Glamorgan. It appeaed from the statement of the petitioners, that a modus had existed for a long period in the parish; that this modus was contested by the Vicar, in the reign of William and Mary, when the Vicar's bill was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious, and himself fixed with the costs of the suit; and that, about twenty years ago, another suit was instituted, when the modus was again confirmed by Sir W. Grant. The petitioners complained that the present Vicar had contested the modus again, and had succeeded in setting it aside as against one person, and the rest of the parish apprehended renewed litigation. Now, he was sure that no one would accuse him of any inclination to infringe the rights of the Church; but when they had cases like the present forced upon their notice, he thought they must all agree that some measure should be introduced on the subject, in order to prevent constant litigation of the worst character. He trusted, therefore, that the bill of the Chief Justice would prove successful. If that bill did not meet the case of the petitioners, he would again bring it under the notice of the House when that bill came into Committee.
The Bishop of Gloucesterdid not, he was sure, need to remind their Lordships, that the petition was an ex-parte statement, and he had no doubt that many of the assertions it contained could be answered or explained.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REFORM—YORK AND DEVON PETITIONS.
The Duke of Norfolkpresented a Petition from the county of York, in favour of the Reform Bill now before Parliament. The petition had been agreed to at a public meeting, regularly convened upon requisition, by the High Sheriff of the county. The petition was signed only by the gentleman who presided at the meeting, in the absence of the High Sheriff, who had been prevented by in- disposition from attending the meeting. The petition, therefore, could, by the forms of the House, be received only as the petion of the individual whose name was

927
attached to it, though it was, in fact, the petition of the meeting.
The Petition read at length.
The Earl of Carlisleobserved, that he had been credibly informed, that no fewer than 50,000 persons in the county of York had signed petitions in favour of Reform. He was satisfied, that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Yorkshire, including the majority of the wealth and respectability of the county, was in favour of the Ministerial measure.
Lord King,said that he had to present a similar Petition, from a county next in importance, perhaps, to that of the great county of York. It was a petition from the county of Devon; and it was something like a proof that the people of that county did not feel that apathy with regard to Reform which a noble Lord had yesterday attributed to them. Before they had heard of the Ministerial plan of Reform, the county of Devon had petitioned for Reform. Now that they had become acquainted with the nature of that measure, they had petitioned in favour of it, as a measure which they believed would be beneficial to the empire, and which they therefore entreated their Lordships to pass.
Lord Rollesaid, that he had been informed that there were not above 100 or 200 freeholders at the meeting at which this petition was agreed to. Such a meeting could not be called a meeting of the county.
Lord Kingsaid, he could not tell how many were present at the meeting; but it had been regularly advertised, and the opponents of the measure, if there were any, must have had full notice of it.

PLURALITIES—THE BISHOP OF ELY.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from Barnsley, praying for a Commutation of Tithes. The petitioners stated, that they paid tithes to persons who performed no spiritual duties among them, and whom they never saw; and they mentioned a remarkable instance of a district in which there were twenty-five livings with only two incumbents. The noble Lord also adverted to a remarkable instance, in the diocese of Ely, of the accumulation of Church livings, one of them of the value of 6.000 l., and Church dignities, in the hands of one person; namely, a prebend of Ely, the rectory of Bexwell, the rectory of Felt-well St. Mary, the rectory of Feltwell St. Nicholas, the vicarage of Waterbeach, and,
928
lastly, the living of Wisbeach. These were curious instances of non-residence and an abuse of patronage; and it had been said, that the Chancellor was not altogether exempt from blame on this last head, as the patronage of one of the livings was in the Crown.
The Lord Chancellorbelieved that his noble friend alluded to a statement in one of the public journals, in which he had been commented upon in no very measured terms, for having been a party to increasing the pluralities of a clergyman.
Lord King.—I do.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could assure their Lordships that that statement, so far as he was concerned in it, was erroneous, and that the author of it had misled his noble friend. There was a certain living, the living, he believed, of Wisbeach, or some such name, — the presentation to which was alternately in the Great Seal and the Bishop of Ely. Upon the application of the Bishop of Ely, Lord Eldon had given up his turn to present to the Bishop, who was anxious to provide for a son, or a son-in-law, or some other relative. The consequence of this was, of course, that the next two presentations were in the Great Seal. Shortly after he had the honour of being appointed to the custody of the Great Seal, he received a letter, written in the hand of a person apparently infirm, but certainly not in the hand-writing of the Bishop, which was very different. The letter was signed with the Bishop's name, and the purport of it was a request that he would give up the next presentation—so that then the Great Seal would have had the three subsequent presentations. Recollecting, however, that if he acceded to this request, he should be doing a favour to the present Bishop at the expense of the next Bishop, he thought it right to pause before he did anything of the kind. He took no notice, therefore, of this letter. About three weeks afterwards he had received another letter, in the same handwriting, and bearing the same signature. He could hardly believe that it was written by the same person. He could not believe that the party, whose signature it bore, knew any thing of it. The letter was an application to him upon totally different grounds, so much so, that it gave him the idea that the presentation was in the Bishop, and not in the Great Seal. The letter stated,

929
that the author of it had written to him (the Lord Chancellor) before; but that he supposed that his letter had not come to hand, from its not having been answered. It requested an answer by return of post, and stated, that if no answer was sent, silence would be taken for consent, and the presentation would be made. In consequence of that letter, he wrote down to the party, whose signature was attached to the letter, desiring that no nomination should be made till he had seen his noble and learned friend Lord Eldon. That noble Lord had given up his turn of presentation, when Lord Chancellor; and he therefore wrote to the right rev. Prelate, informing him that the whole matter must depend upon his noble and learned friend, Lord Eldon. His noble and learned friend gave his consent to the application, and he therefore signed the document, discharging thereby, as their Lordships would see, nothing else than a Ministerial duty. Had the patronage belonged to himself, he should not have done it, but he considered it as a matter of delicacy to Lord Eldon, and therefore acted as if the patronage had not belonged to the Great Seal, but to his noble and learned friend. He repeated, that he should not have done it had it been left to himself, for the succeeding Bishops would lose three turns, as the four next would be in the Great Seal. What the state of health of that rev. Prelate might be, he did not know. He hoped that he was in a good state of health; sure he was that the rev. Prelate ought to be in a good state of health, for he had recently given away a prebend and the valuable living of Wisbeach, which was worth 2,000 l. a year, to a near relation of his own. He had suspicions—and as a Minister of the Crown he felt bound to state them—that there were persons near that rev. Prelate who disposed of his patronage in a way which he would not sanction if in perfect health. He did not know who was to blame in this business; all he knew was, that he (the Lord Chancellor) was not. Whilst he was a Minister of the Crown, he pledged himself to their Lordships to take care that the patronage of the Crown in this department would not be abused, or, that if it were abused, he would be no party to the abuse.
Petition laid on the Table.