The National Register. — London, England, 1811-01-06 00:00:00

ertergy.--(Question ! )—The calamities of Europe were written in its blood. Mr. Powsoxiv expressed n - u-h reluctance to protract the discussion, his primary object being to do away certain mire presentations. What, was it now necessary to review the dm racters of politicians who had been dead four years ago. lie l that there would be no repetition of undue warmth on either side. Mr. CA N NING here said, that his chief object was to obtain a disavowal, as to Mr. Pitt, which had been made by Mr. Pcn sonby. Mr. WurruiTAD asked what was the nature of the disavows!, alluded to; when he was interrupted by repeated and incessant cries of Question. Strangers', were then ordered to withdraw, after which Lod Porchester's amendment was put and negatived without a division. We understand that Mr. Perceval then proposed anew the Resolution respecting the Household which had been lost in tie Committee. The Opposition however resolutely maintained their ground, and once more supported the amendment of Lord Gower's which had before been carried by a majority of thirteen, resolv ing that her Nlajesty should have the 64 sole direction of szch portion of his _Majesty's Household as should be deemed x quisite",y,(e. A division then took place on this amendment, and Ministers were a second time ddeated,by a majority of three ! The four first Resolutions were carried without a division. THURSDAY, JAN. 3. REFUSAL OF THE EXCHEQUER TO GRANT MONEY FOR THE ARMY AND NAVY. Lord CLIVE went up to the House of Lords with a message, requesting a conference, which having been granted, the sane Committee which had attended the former conference attended the Lords in the Painted Chamber, and laid before them a cory of the Resolutions respecting the Regency, desiring their Loi ships concurrence thereto, The CHANCELLOR of the Ere nrQur te rose to inform tie Ilouse, that a difficulty having occurred in consequence of tle existing unhappy circumstances of the nation, with respect ;o the issuing money for the service of the army, he would in leave to request the interference of the House in order to co away the possibility of an inconvenience which would he mat serious if not immediately prevented. He conceived that It would be inconvenient to entt r into a discussion of the propoi tion lie intended to make, until the House were in possession of all the facts of the case. He would to-morrow call their attet tion to the consideration of it, and begged to be understood as not haying had it in his intention to obtain a previous intim pity, but merely to shew to the House whether Ministers hail acted with propriety or otherwise, in attempting to act as they did. He then moved that there he laid before the House _ _ " A copy of a warrant from the Lords Commissioners of tie Treasury to the Auditor of the Exchequer, dated 31st Deccta ber last, together wi,h a copy of the correspondence which had taken pla:!e upon the subject of that warrant, between the Lords of the TreaA.ry and the Office of the Exchequer." Mr. Pox I' regretted that the Chancellor of the Exche quer had not tAte:i :tees, but would certainly not do any thing in counteraction of what would be of benefit to the pub lic service. The CHANCELLOR of the FxcnEQutß felt thankful to the Honourable Gentlemen on the other side for their forbearance on this occasion. He thought he should be able to shew suffi ciently to the House, that no public inconvenience had resulted from this cifficulty not having been earlier brought under their consideration. The case was shortly this :—The Act, called the Exchequer Act, required that issues of money from the Exche quer shall only be made !;), the authority of the Great Seal, the Privy Seal, or the directions of an Act of Parliament. It ap peared to the Lords of the Treasury, that, as certain sums of money had been expressly appropriated by an Act of Parlia ment for those particular serviccs,the Exchequer in issuing those monies on the warrant of the First Lord of the Treasury, would have been strictly justifiable, as issuing it under the directions of an Act of Parliament. This had been the common practice of the Exchequer ; hut, nevertheless, upon consulting the At ‘d "elicitor-General ,uppn the legality of issues un nt, they were, zn of opinion that under the In of the wordS of the Act, such payments could payments by the direction of an Act of Parlia• then, to give legality to the warrant, lie next :eat Seal; but, although the officer to whom the 'trusted was most perfectly ready to take the full himself of any act which the duties of his office • - d, it was tout.d that there ‘r ere no in.ttances 4,-4lpao .**4.4* of any money issued upon warrants under the Great Seal for public services of th:s description, or for any other purposes but what were connected with the Great Seal or the office of Lord Chancellor. He then found it necessrry to see whether the Privy Seal could not be obtained, for if it was, there was no doubt of the legality of the warrant, and it would have been the duty of the Exchequer to have issued the money, although the persons were to be hanged who made use of the Privy Seal. He at first thought that the keeper of the Privy Seal was the only person responsible• and that officer was, as well as the rest of His Ma jesty's Ministers,perfectly disposed to encounter the responsi bility of every act which the public service might require to be done in his department. It appeared, however, that he was not the only responsible person ; for by the Act, the Clerk of the Privy seal is also an efficient officer ; and every act under the Privy Seal must be attested by his signature. His Majesty's Ministers Would have wished, as far as it could he possibly done, to take the whole of the responsibility upon themselves ; but this could not be done, and the Clerk of the Privy Seal appeared not only indisposed to give his signature, but said that he was hound by virtue of his oath to refuse his signature. This was a difficulty which it was not easy to surmount, nor could it be expected that even the Resolutions of the House of Commons would overcome the religious scruples of a conscientious man. It appeared necessary, then, to pass an Act of Parliament to sus pend pro Canto, either the oath, or the necessity of his signature. After a short conversation between the Chancellor cf the Ex chequer, Mr. Bernard, and Lord Temple, the motion was agreed to. Mr. HOBART then brought up the Papers, which were or dered to lie on the table, and be printed, and referred to a Com mittee of the whole House to-morrow. FRIDAY, JAN. 4. ISSUE OF PUBLIC MONEY. On the motion of Mr. PERCEVAL, a Copy of a Letter of the Privy Seal, staling their reasons for refusing to affix the Privy Seal to Warrants for the issue of money for the Army and Navy. was ordered to be laid before the House, and was afterwards read. It was signed John Larpent, and John James Larpent, dated Privy Seal Office, 4th of January. The grounds upon which they did not think themselves justifiable in affixing the Privy Seal to the Warrants were, that by the usual course of business in the Privy Seal Office, they could not prepare a docu ment to affix the Privy Seal, but under a docket under the King's Sign Manual, and countersigned by three Lords of the Treasury, and that they conceived themselves bound by their oath of office, which they quoted, not to affix the Privy Seal till such formalities should have been fulfilled. After a long desultory conversation on the manner in which the papers were to be taken into consideration, the various do cuments contained under the head " State Papers," in another part of our paper, were referred to a Committee of the whole House. _ _ The CnANcEt.t.oa of the EXCHFQUER, in bringing his pro mised subject before a Committee, observed, that although the Noble Lord (Grenville) was certainly liable to some legal res ponsibility of form, still the actual, the effective responsibility was for Ministers, who had voluntarily assumed it, in order to urge that course of proceeding which they thought most condu cive to the public weifate. '1 he Right Hun. Gentleman con chided by moving two Resolutions, the substance of which was as follows 46 That it was necessary that the sums voted and appropriated by Parliament should be issued. " That it wasexpedient that the Lords of the Treasury should be empowered to direct such an issue by their Warrant, and that the Auditor of the Exchequer should be authorised and commanded to obey their Warrant of the 31st of December, and such other Warrants as they should in future issue in like manner." On the Question being put, Sir JOHN SEA BRIGHT approved, in the warmest terms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's conduct; he thought it the best and manliest that could be adopted. Lcrd TEm YLE defended the conduct of his Noble Relation (Lord Grenville) and contended that Ministers alone had acted contrary to the Constitution, by their attempt to issue money on their own responsibility, when Parliament was sitting. •• Mr. RosE justified the conduct of Ministers. Mr. Po NSON BY observed, that all this difficulty prim% from ill-timed procrastination in su ppl y i ng t h e suspended P°`". ers of Royalty. All the logic a nd e l oquence i n t h e lionSe could; not have told them bei ter than this Resolution now befollt them, cf the neci.ssity of filling the vacancy sooner. tsit-could not have proclaimed more loudly their artificial proceedings, which had been done in open defiance of the Constitution, and of mullion sense. He affirmed that Ministers, in the Resolu tions noW proposed, were presuming to take up the (Attu fuuc- 4............ torney and Solici tier such warrant strict construction be considered as y nient. In order, aOptlid to the Ore Great Seal is entrt respontlblity on hi igh t - re quire ; y 4 L T'H E NATIONAL* REGISTER .