The Sun. — London, England, 1828-06-24 00:00:00

with the disapprobation and censure-of Parliament. /le trusted that in a question like that he should not be unsupported by men of high talent. Having -Ltnuilit the subject forward as an individual, :he should take the liberty of moving two resolutions; "lie stating the fact, another setting forth the prin as quoted from a resolution of the Jour f'alt of the House in 1811, which was passed "Y a large majority, iu censure of the misapplica tion of a certain sum of money. The Hon. Gentle ttlan then read his'resolutions, which were in sub stance as follows : " That it appears to this House, from papers on the Table of the House, that the Commissioners for 11► Q liquidation, arbitration, and deposit of the "Ainas of British subjects against France, appointed under the 59th Geo. 111. chap. 71, did pay by °Ner of the Lords Commissioneis of the Treasury to th e Commissioners of Wooels and Forests, the sum 10 0,000/., on the 10th of March, 1827 ; 35,000/. ° the 7th of February, 1827 ; 100,0001. on the 1 6th March, 1827; and 15,000/. on the 3d of June, 1 827; in all 250,000/. : without any communication With this House, or any vote or authority for dpply them to that purpose." Mr. BARING seconded the motion. Mr. HERRIES—Sir, I rise with great pain, and astrong sense of the difficulty of the subject of dis cussion. The reason why I rise so early in the de hate is, that I was one of the persons whose official Islations gave me an opportunity of acquiring a know !tdge of the transaction, and who am therefore best ( tabled by my acquaintance with thelaets to ex- Plain the circumstances and repel the imputations, serioes and heavy as they are, that have been made against the character of the persons concerned in these transactions. I am sure I shall the more readily obtain the indulgence of the House when I 'Mind them that the elaborate and lengthened 'statement of the Hon. Mover of these Resolutions thews how deeply he is impressed with the import- I tnee and difficulty of the subject. With the same iMpression of the importanee of the question, but by 4 shorter argument, I trust I shall be able to clear of all imputation the persons accused of this most serious charge. This has been described as an Act Inost grievous on the subject, and subversive of the Principles of the Constitution, and the privileges of Parliament, that has been committed since the Re solution. If this be an Act of that nature, it lies heavy on the memory of eminent Statesmen—of Men the last to be suspected of such an Act—some of whom are now unable to answer for or defend ...themselves. I mean of Mr. Canning, and of Lord LiverpOol, and of Lard Goderich, who, thank God, is yet able to answer for himself. If this Act deserves the imputations heaped on it by the Hon. Member, then I say that the memory of Mr. Canning, and the Character of Lord Liverpool and Lord Goderich, Who is yet alive, are in the greatest jeopardy; but, Sir, I hope, from the nature of the plain and simple account of it which I shall give to the House, that the friends of those Noble and Hon. Persons need tabour under no great anxiety for the fate of the Hon. gentleman's motion. I hope I shall be able to spew 1 0 the House that there is no reason for entertaining of those Noble and Hon. Persons the opinions they Must merit if the measure in question were a misap plication of the public funds, and a violation of the Principles of the Constitution—for the Hon. Gentle- Man has not gone so far as to say that it was a viola tion of a Statute. The Hon. Gentleman says he has stated his case. Now, before I give my reasons for differing from the Hon. Gent., I conceive it better toetate my case too from documents,and my recollec tion of the facts. But before I proceed to that, I Wish to remove an erroneous impression on the !louse as to the date of the transaction, into which the House and the lion. :Member have been misled • 'I a clerical error in the official document on which the issue was made. If the House wish to hear the facts, I hope they will not proceed to a division without linesairtg to an explanation of a clerical error. Sir; there is an error; in the document to which 1 a lluded, it is stated, that the money was issued on t ile 10th of March, while the treasury warrant is dated 41y the 30th. But the fact is, and the money was 4 0t and could not be paid before the warrant was Signed by the Lords of the Treasury; on the con trary'~r was paid after—namely:on the . sth of April, thongs set forth in a different manner through mis take in this document. Now, the facts of the case are these—in the year 1825, Lord Goderich being theta Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought in a ttill for appropriating a grant of money to the erec tion of certain public buildings. In the course of the Proceeding it was found that the sam wanted would b e about 250,0001. The public funds most proper f or this purpose, appeared to be those arising from the sale of crown lands, Some time after the eree ti°n of thaw edifices began it was discovered that the funds in band were not sufficient, and for these rah -41411, that the expenses of certain measures for im- Proving 'and beautifying the metropolis were made chargeable on this fund—and the charges on the fend being unexpected were the more heavy. Thus the revenue arising from the sale of the crow n lands was not near sufficient for to kimplete the erection of Buckingham Palace. About this time it was announced to the Treasury that the Commission for the adjustment of the daises 4 gainst France had closed their labours, and, having • Aid all they were called on to award, had a surplus \ remaining. It then became a question with the treasury to determine what was to be done with the surplus ; and in the decision of this question, neither Slr. Canning, who as Foreign Secretary had the duty of announcing the fact to the Treasury, nor th e Lords of the Treasury, proceeded lightly, for they applied to the King's Advocate for his opinion, Who reported that the purposes of the Act having been accomplished, the Treasury possessed a discrea tionary power of disposing of the overplus. After this the meeting took place which has been alluded t o, in which meeting the Treasury decided, in con currence with the Secretary of State (for according 1 0 the provisions of the Act nothing could be done without the concurrence of the two Secretaries.) In 'llls meeting it was decided, first, that a certain por tion of the surplus should be reserved to discharge srtain claims which, though inadmissible' under the S'tter of the law, were considered such as in abstract justice ought to be satisfied. An estimate was then made that, by putting aside 200,0001. for that pur ' Pose, 300,0001. would remain at the disposal of the Treasury. This was considered enough, and more than enough, for the liquidation of the remaining C laims. Tke 300,000/. would be at the disposal o f t he Treasury, for public purposes. Thus, by t h e Act of Parliament, the Treasury being authorised to ' 4 4 with this surplus, all parties concurred in the ! a ppropriation of them, and that they did so concur . ; each individual has since shown by subsequent acts ofhi s . Mr. Cannin g , i n J u ly 1827, and Lord Liverpo o l and Lord Goderich, by measures of theirs , 'owed that they had concu rre d. They had a right t il a employ this stun in p the m anner they did, and w ere applying it to a just and proper object. I k l rant they were not warranted in applying it to any ' but plispose f to p urp oses for the pled o f the public. They considered they were authorised by the Act so 16 ' apply it. They did so apply it, but in a tear ] Trary manner ; for I conteed that they nev er touted it—they merely used it conditionally for u t ' )entin public purpose, under circumstances which : 1 1 t to diem the power of restoring that stun if ever i t f al4 lld appear proper to Parliament to eall for it Y` : 1 ' this they had the authority of Parliament to 0 1 '. 0 Y it to a public purpose. The Hon. Mover of i . l "e resolutions has compared this Act with former r t l'sures, to which, as precedents, it has no kind i-li favour ; for if I were asked to chew a precedent f„ '4V OLir of this measure, I could not find ;my E 0 ta i v : T a rohle, thought of a contrary nature, than that of , a i o _don. Member ; for that which he has quoted, is e . a elirseterised by this distinct mark, that it contains „ en arge of illegality, a charge which he has not ease to make On the present measure : in the ,s , ita !'an which the measure of 1811 was founded, a aetion had been placed by Parliament on appro e ' pro o i o , :1 p ar „ n of the sum to a purpose not authorized by th _"Snsent ; whereas, in the present case, was not II 'am voted by Parliament far a particular pup poe ?—(Cheem)—Then, Sir, I am right, and if Hon. Gentlemen would remember the constitution of this House, they would see that I am. In all cases of supply the Parliament restricts the opera tions of the Government; but in a case of ways and means, the funds are left to the Treasury for discre tionary application to any public purpose. As to the conduct of Sir Chat les Seymour, that is not at all applicable to the present case, for he lent money to the army beyond the amount granted by Parlia ment, and he acted illegally in se doing; but as for the sum destined for the erection of Buckingham Palace, no restriction had been placed on it by Par liament. Parliament having had no estimate of the total expences before it, could sot, and did not fix the sum of expenditure on that building at any de finite sum ; and thus the Treasury was left to sup ply the deficiencies indefinitely out of the proceeds of the lands of the Crown ; and in appropriating the surplus to that object, they but anticipated the reve nue derivable from the sale of those lands. They did not expend it on any purpose other than a pub lic one—they did not misapply, they merely antici pated the increasing of the fund, which was being raised by the authority of an Act of Parliament, and which ultimately was to be devoted to this purpose. The Parliament had authorised Government in 1826 to raise a loan for the building of Buckingham Pa lace, on the sale of leases of the buildings on the site of Carlton Palace, and by another Act of 1827, on the sale of lands in Ireland, and the appropriation of the surplus to the erection of Buckingham Palace was bet an anticipation of these funds. But it may be asked why not rather raise money on these leads than so to appropriate this surplus ? For this reason, that the modeadopted was the cheaper and more economical method—as in borrowing money it would have been necessary to pay a larger interest than was necessary in the latter proceeding; but then I may be met with, why not come to Parliament to ask permission :so to appropriate it. To this I answer, that it was not necessary, because they need not ask Parliament to place at their disposal sums which were already at their disposal by Act of Parliament. Parliament having already allowed theta to raise a loan on the sale of land in Ireland, and leases of Carlton Palace, and having thus placed these funds at the disposal of the Treasury, was it necessary that those persons who have been so heavily accused to-night, should come and ask Parliament to grant them over again that power which they already possessed by the au thority of those Acts of Parliament. I said at the outset that I rose with some degree of pain to ad dress the House on this subject, and the reason was that it happened to me, in my humble lot, to be a party in the transactions to which I allude, though in too humble a situation to take any important share in the affair, or to participate in the responsibility consequent upon it. The Right Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to state, that in the situation which he (Mr. Henries) held when these transactions were going forward, it would be presumption in him to suppose that any part of the blame, if blame there was, could have fallen on him. If he had then been in a situation to have advised the Crown, he had no hesitation in saying that be would have concurred with Mr. Canning, Lord Liverpool, and Lord Gode rich. (Hear.) He would not have shrunk from stating as his opinion, that the application of this money to the purposes for which it was applied, was not unconstitutional, but that Government, in so applying the money, had acted in strict conformity with the law, and had only applied the money to purposes for which Parliament authorised it to be expended. He did not consider that the applica tion of this money was • any ground for the censure of the House. In all the cases that had been quoted, where Parliament had cen sured the appropriation of money, the principle on which the appropriation was censured had been; that the application had net been for the public ser vice, and not for the purpose for which it was in tended to be applied by Parliament. No censure was ever thrown on a Government which acted with the double authority from Parliament to use the money and to apply it to a particular purpose. He (Mr. Herries) denied the justice of the inference made by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. A. Taylor), that the Government had appropriated a part of this money to the relief of the distressed manufacturers, in order to "gild the pill." The Government had determined to interfere for the relief of the dis tressed manufacturers. Parliament was not sitting at the time—this money was in the care of the reasury, applicable to public purposes, and they did not think it necessary to "gild a pill" when they applied this money to the relief of distress, which had increased to a most lamentable extent.— The observation's of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. A. Taylor) conveyed a strong imputation against the Government. It charged them with subter fuge, unfairness, and trickery. Could Gentlemen of so much honour have been guilty of such mean ness ?—(Cheers.) Could they have persuaded the Hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. John Smith) to have entered into such a plan ?—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition Benches.) He did not know, what that cheer meant, but he thought that the Hon. Member to whom he referred would not not have concurred in any thing so mean and unworthy.— The application of this money had been a matter of grave and serious deliberation. There were great difficulties in the transaction, but those difficulties were considered ; and the Government evinced a disposition to avert the calamities which were im pending. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR beved pardon. lie had not made the charge against the Government which the Right Hon.. Gentleman imputed to him. Mr. HERRIES continued—The Hon. Gentle man had used the words to " gild the pill," and nothing but meanness could be inferred from such a charge. The Honourable Gentleman had com plained that Parliament had been put in possession of documents for which he had not moved, but was it not right that Parliament should be put in posses sion of all the documents ?—(Hear.)—The docu ments had been laid before the Finance Committee and had got much abroad, and it was right that Par liament should be in possessiOn of the whole. — (Hear, hear.)—lle (Mr. Henries) had stated the ease truly and exactly as he had witnessed it, and as the documents before the House proved it. lie always presented himself reluctantly before the House, and would leave it to others to discuss the Constitutional point. He was satisfied that the whole transaction on the part of Government was strictly correct ; that the execution of the power vested in the Government was strictly correct, and that the Government throughout the whole trans action had acted honestly, uprightly, and legally. He seas therefore prepared to give a direct negative to the motion made by the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. BARING said that this subject had engaged the attention of the Finance Committed, arid not seeine. the Chairman of that Committee in his place, he (Mr. It) thought it necessary that some person should state the real facts ; for though they had been stated by his Hon. Friend, the Member for Durham, they were so changed and turned about by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henries) that ha doubted whether the House was in possession of them. It was quite impossible to say that it was not the duty of the House to take some notice of dais transaction. It was usual, when oppo,;iog such motions, to propose some modified proposition; but the Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Herries) put the question on a direct negative, and called on the House to say that where so strong and clear a case had been made : out, no notice whatever should be taken of it.— (Heitr.)—He was the more surprised that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) should have put it on these grounds, when he recollected that the Right Hon. Gentleman, when in the Finance Com tnittee, had admitted that the transaction was irregular. He, Mr. Baring, could not speak posi tively as to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Committee, but the Master of the. Mint had certainly admitted that the transac,ion was irregular, and that he wished it had been otiier- "Tie. Mr. HERRIES expreised his dissent. Mr, BARING continued. He did not iin.,te exactly to recollect the Right Hon. Gentleman's words, but he remembered perfectly well that be, Mr. Baring, said in the Committee, that if a Minister of the Crown admitted the t tusaction to be irregular, a Committee of the House of Commons was bound to inquire whether another name should not be given to the transaction. (Hear.) Sir E. KNATCHBULL rose to order. He put, it to the Hon. Member, whether it was fair or deli cate that the Hon. Member should enter into what bad passed in the Finance Committee.—(Cries of hear, hear, and order.) Mr. BARING resumed. If he was irregular, it was very right he should have been called to order, but he did not think that he was out of it.—(Hear.) He was not aware that there were any considerations to prevent him from alluding to the proceedings of a public Committee. The proceedings in this case were before the House, and the House must deal with it. That time Right Hon. Gentleman opposite should feel considerably embarrassed at it was net to him a matter of wonder. He (Mr. Baring) had himself objected to the discussion of the question before the Finance Committee. He thought it im portant that in that Committee they should avoid all questions of a personal nature, that they should not enter upon every little matter of public scandal. Be sides, the Noble Lord (Liverpool) who was at the head of the Government when this transaction took place, had withdrawn from public life. A Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Canning) who had been con cerned in it, was no more. In fact the principal actors were out of the way, and he (Mr. Baring) was unwilling to mix up the transaction in the in quiries of . the Finance Committee, until it came under their consideration in the regular course— until they came to the particular department with which this transaction was connected. He thought of course that the Committee were then bound to enter fully into the transaction, and he had drawn up a paper describing the precise manner in which he thought the Committee should con duct the inquiry. In the course he had pursued and wished to pursue on this question there was no desire for eliminating individuals—there was no such intense feeling of party actuating him or any of his Hon. Friends.—(Hear, hear.)—This was not a question affecting the Ministry nor any person in the Ministry to a great degree. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had very properly stated that at the period when this appropriation took place he was only Under Secretary of the Trea sury, and could not be considered the responsible person. For one person who was in some degree responsible he (Mr. Baring) had a great esteem. (We understood the Hon. Gentleman to allude to the late Mr. Canning.) That person was no more; but when he had taken the lead in affairs, it had in duced him (Mr. Baring) to change his seat in that House; us the only means he had of giving him his humble support. He mentioned this to prove that he did not rake up those transactions with an unkind intention. He did not impute any improper mo tives to the Ministry—he did not charge them with any great violation of constitutional principles—but from carelessness and negligence, he thought they had violated the privileges and rights of that House. He did not want this motion to have any effect on the Ministry. As a Ministry, be did not object to it, nor did he wish to cast any serious reflections on in dividual members of the Administration. But the House was bound to look to its own character, and to those privileges which rendered it useful and effective. If they disregarded the constitutional power they pos sessed of eontrouling the public purse, and the Exche quer of the country, they abandoned their own right. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to intend by his address rather to perplex and to confuse them than to throw light on this subject. Two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, or two hundred thousand ,pounds, were voted to enable the Commissioners of the Land Revenue to repair and improve Buckieg ham House. " For the improvement and repairs of Buckingham House," were the words. The Crown Revenue was the proper fund. Lord Gode rich stated that the repairing might be estimated at teoo,ooo/., and us they occurred in 1825, the House considered that the expellee would run over many years. To raise the sum necessary various modes were pointed cut with great precision—amongst others the selling offices in Ireland; but with all the minuteness not a syllable was said of the money belonging to the claimants of France. Parliament passed this Act under the supposition that the ex pense would not exceed 200,0004 But in this Par liament found itself entirely deceived. It would have been impossible if any other men had been con cerned in it not to have said that it had been a trick to induce Parliament to begin the work with the understanding that it would only cost 200,000/., while it was likely, before it was concluded, to amount to 600,000/: Mr. BANKES here interrupted Mr. Baring to observe, that the completion of Buckingham Palace would only cortie to 432,000/. Mr. BARING resumed. He had understood that the architect himself admitted that the expense would not fall short of 500,000/. This was no mat ter. He would come to the more important part of the subject--how this money had come into the hands of the Commissioners ; and how it came to be dealt with as it had been by the Treasury. It was said it had been at the disposal of the Treasury, and legally he admitted it was at their disposal. But what was the meaning of its being at the disposal of the Treasury ? Why, that it was in their hands for the public service, and that they were accountable to Parliament for its application. The money was ap propriated on the 10th March, 1826, when Parlia ment was sitting. There was no return made of the transaction to Parliament in 1827, and none in 1828, until by the accidental circumstance of two Committees being sitting the transaction came out. This was the gravamen of the charge against the Government. No one doubted their statutable eight of the Treasury to dispose of the money, nor of any funds left in their hands by the House for general purposes. But Parliament ought immediately to • have received notice of the manner in which the money had been applied. If it had been applied to the payment of the army or navy, or the Sinking Fund, it would have been irregular for the Treasury to have appropriated this money, which was, to all intents :rad purposes public money, without giving public notice of its appropriation. But if it would have been bad to have applied this fund to the expences of the army or navy, without tile consent of Parlia ment, it was worse to appropriate it to a blind fund like the Woods and Forests, and to apply it to build ing a palace for the Crown. However necessary palace for the Monarch might be, the people wished and had right to do a gracious act of that kind themselves, and not to have the money taken from then by stealth out of a fund which ought to have been appropriated for public purposes. He (Mr. Baring) was net one of those who thought that the Sovereign of this country should not have a palace suited to his station, and to the importance of this country; he would not be niggardly on such a sub ject, but the people, through their representatives in that Mouse, had a right to vote the money for it. They sat there until morning engaged in discussions about salmon fisheries and lunatic asylums, but they would be fit for lunatic asylums themselves if they allowed themselves to be wheedled arid (hived through the dirt, and did not stand up for the right of the people, and for their own rights and the privi leges of Parliament. (Cheers.) Lie was glad the Right Hon. Gentleman had answered the motion by a direct negative. This would enable his Hon. Friend, at all events, to record the words of that motion, and it would prove the principle upon which those who supported it voted. (Hear.) Mr. HERRIES begged to be allowed a word in explanation. The language he used in the Finance Conunittee, and which the Hon. Gentleman had al luded to, did not refer to the appropriation of the money. He had applied the words, it was irre gular, or he wished it was otherwise, to the cir cumstance that the account of the application of the money had not beer I previously laid before Rohe- 11lent. Mr, BARING--Does the RitAt Hun. Gentle man now admit that the neglecting to lay an account of the transactions before Parliament was irregular (Hear.) Mr. HERRIES—I am perfectly ready to repeat what I said in the Committee, that as to that part of the transaction I wished it was otherwise.— Mr. BARING—Then I hope that the Right Hon. Gentleman will have no objection that the !louse should likewise express its wish that that part of the transaction s had been otherwise.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Mr. ARBUTHNOT next rose ; he said, that upon one occasion he went to Lord Goderich, when several of his Majesty's Ministers, amongst whom was Mr. Canning-, were discuss;ng the subject. A question was asked as to the state of this fund, and the answer was, that it amounted to about 500,000/. It was also stated, that if the claims upon the fund then alluded to were to be admitted, they would not amount to mere than 200,000/. It was presumed that every person having claims had then sent them in, and yet it was deemed quite certain that two mil lions would meet the whole, and that there would remain about 300,000/.. At this time a temporary advance was required by the CoMmissioners of Woods and Forests, and the money was advanced to them upon account. The money was not granted to them as a gift, but solely as a loan. (Hear, hear, hear) : as an anticipation of the revenue to be paid when called for. (Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the Hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, that the Treasury had no power to make a temporary use of the money; for the words of the Act of Parliament authorised them to apply any surplus which might remain after the claims upon the fund were liquidated, to such other purposes as they might deem requisite. Blamehad been thrown► upon the con cealment of the transaction, and he must admit that it would have been better if it had been made known to Parliament. The last Report of the Commis sioners of Woods and Forests, when he had the ho nour to be a Commissioner, exhibited a regular ha lame sheet, volunteered by the Commisioners, it not having been required by Parliament, which ex hibited every transaction clearly and perspicuously. From this balance sheet Parliament must be aware that other sums were received, because they were so mentioned, bums wholly unconnected with the de partment. At one time a large sum to the amount of 300,0001. was borrowed from the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, and in order to pay off a por tion of this sum, 100,000/. was advanced to the Com missioners of Woods and Forests out of the Conso• lidated Fund. Indeed he had heard that there were some transactions in this department which ought not to meet the public eye, but for his own part he had never any objection to the inspection of their affairs, and he believed the Right Host. Member for Liverpool had invited the Member for Aberdeen to do so. The Hon. Member for Durham, in speaking of the land revenue, said, that nothing could arise from it under its present management. Notwith standing this, he would state, and perhaps it might be interesting to the House, what that revenue was one hundred years ago—the sole net revenue was under 5,0001., and at the commencement of the reign of George the Third, it amounted to no more than 10,000/. It was not much more than this when the Commission was first established. After the works effected by the Commissioners near the me tropolis had been finished, towards: which nearly one million sterling had been applied, the revenue had arisen to 150,0001. per annum, whereas, in 1794, it was only 12,0001. per annum.—(Bear, hear.) Lord HOWICK would call the attention of the House to what had been stated by Lord Goderich, when he moved, in a Committee of Supply, for a sum for the repair and fixtures of Buckingham House. He said that it was absolutely necessary for the comfort of the Sovereign that some improve ment should take place, and he further stated that the expense of that improvement could not be less than 200,0001. It now appeared that instead of 200,0001., this alteration was to cost the nation no less than 432,000/.—(llear, hear.)—The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Arbuthnot) had admitted that it would have been lqetter if the matter had been stated to Parliament ; he would ask any lion. Member of the House whether they would have consented if they had been told that these alterations and improvements would cost such a sum as .132,0001. Mr. HUSKISSON rose amidst cries of " Ques- tion, question." As soon as he could obtain atten tion, he proceeded very nearly as follows :—Sir, the Noble Lord, who has just sat down, has said, that when the Estimate of the expenses of Buckingham Palace was first brought down, it was said that those expenseS would not exceed 200,00111. The Hon. Member for Callington had said that the esti mate submitted to the House was 200,000/. ; but at the time the Bill passed into a lawlwhich autho rised the expenditure, it was stated by my Noble Friend that the expense would not be less than 800,000/.; but in saying this, he gave no undertak ing as to what the expense would actually amount to. When the Noble Lord asks, could ally Member of the House consent to such an expenditure, I answer that it was at that time impossible to esti mate what would be the amount of the expenditure. In 1825 there was a much more easy feeling as to the expenditure than existed at present, and no stronger proof could be adduced of this fact than the Act of Parliament which was passed, giving to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests unlimited cre dit to expend not 420,000/. but even twice that bairn, if necessary, provided it was drawn from the Revenues of Woods and Forests. There is, there fore, no ground of accusation against my Noble Friend. (Hear, hear.) It may be a fit subject of inquiry as to what has led to such an extraordinary expenditure, but that inquiry was going forward in a Committee. This question, Sir, ought first to be considered with regard to the nature of the fund from which the advance has been made, and, se condly, with respect to the advance itself, the prin ciple of which has lreen lost sight of by every lion. Gentleman who has addressed the House.. The Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. A. Taylor) has ran sacked the Journals of Parliament, and bus lighted on the case of Mr. Leek, Treasurer of the Navy in the time of Charles the Second. Parliament had voted the sum of 500,000/. to the Naval Service, and a portion of this, to the amount of 90,0001., the Treasurer applied to a different purpose. He also alluded to 1711, but he should have recollected that all these sums so misapplied were funds granted by Parliament, and created by votes in this House, and I should cordially agree with every word of his re solution if it applied to funds of this description; but it does not—the present fund is not one of that description —it was never in the Exchequer of this country—it was never included in any annual Bill of appropriation. (Hear, hear.) It was one of those funds which had arisen incidentally like the droits of the Crown, and but for the Act of the 59th of the late King (assumirs for this 1 must assume, that all ,„ the claims are satisfied) the surplus might be ap plic:d just in the same manner as any other droits of • die Crown ; and if the Crowe appropriated ir, like other droits, all purposes would have been satisiled by laying it before Parliament in the course of the next session, with a statement of the manner in which it had been applied. With respect, hotvever, to the present fund, Parliament has never appropriated it, and therefore there can be no misappropriation. I will just assume that the Crown has applied the surplus fund as it has been applied, and I contend that every claim of Parliament must be satisfied by stating next session the manner in which it has been applied. It cannot therefore be considered as a sum in the Exche quer. I leave it to the conunon sense of Parlii.ment, or of the public, to say whether I am riot right in this csnstriiction of the Act. The words of the Act are these—`‘ That, after the claims are liquidated, the surplus, if any, shall be appropriated its the Com missioners, or any three of them shall think fit." If the words were added," And such appropriation shall be laid before Parliament in the next Session," then, indeed, it might be said that there was a departure from the letter of the law ; but there were No such ivords, and therefore there WAS no departure from ' its express letter. I remember a case in point. Im mediately prior to the ~.‘• '• France* orders were issued to bring in all 1 , 1 . , , i„•t; and a great number were taken befufe th, Declaration of War was issued. lam not now about to defend this measure, for it is unnecessary to my object ; but, after the Declaration of War, the vessels were sold and the produce became the property of the Crown. What was done with this money ? During the seven years' war it was lent for one branch of the service, and for another, as exigency required, and was always repaid by votes of this House of Parliament, and at the end of the war, France, not being in a situation to call for its repayment, this money was, for the first time appropriated to the public service. —(Hear, hear.)—This was a perfectly analogous case. It was a fund precisely in the Fame situation parties having claims against it. The whole then stands in this way, that, whereas in 1825 Parlia rr►ent decided upon the application► of an unlimited sum to the repairs of Buckingham House, and those repairs having been carried on more rapidly than there were funds to meet,not that the funds were not adequate but that they were not forthcoming—finding, therefore, one on which there was no claim, and which might be appropriated by the Crown, and which, if the accounts were laid upon the table as a fend appro priated by the Crown, there could be no fault found, but which not being done, the Crown thought fit to adviance as a loan ; and I say, that if the, Crown had appropriated this sum finally it would have changed the nature of this fund, which, although not applied perhaps strictly according to the letter of the law, has certainly been according to its general spirit.— If I have made myself understood—(Hear, hear) — I think I have shown that this fund, not having been appropriated by Parliament, was at the disposal of the Crown, and that all cavils would have been set ' at rest, as to a final appropriation having been made, if its disposal was laid before Parliament in the next Session after it took place. Then, if it be asked what caused the increased expenditure—l believe every Gentleman is aware that in the vicinity of the Palace there hare been built new Mews, new Royal Stables, and how were the expenses provided for?' by lending out of the droits the sum necessary for the purpose—as a loan in the first instance, but not as a loan when taken into account as a final disposi tion of those droits. My Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Herries) has, I think, unnecessarily opposed the first resolution, which is merely one of facts. To the second I certainly would give a direct negative, because it asserts a state of things which has no ex istence, and therefore I feel myself competent, instead of giving it a negative, to move the previous question. There has been another point adverted to, that of the loan to the weavers of Lancashire, and I say that there is no difference between the principle of the present case and that of the appropriation of 50,0001. to them, except that difference which results from the over-ruling of sound principles of legislation upon emergencies ; leaving which out of consideration. there could be nothing more exceptionable than such a grant of 50,000/. Yet I was cognizant of that appropriation, out of which it is true there was only 15,000/. actually granted, and I thought it a bad precedent, and especially as applications of the same kind had before been, in previous Sessions, distinctly negatived. The case of Buckingham House, how ever, is different, as the necessity for carrying it on was recognized, while on the other subject Pal ha meat negatived and denied the proposition in toto. On these grounds I can have no difficulty in voting for the negative of the present question. There were loud cries of question, when the SPEAKER put the amendment. Mr. HERRIES said, in explanation, that his ne gative was intended to apply, to the substance of the 2d resolution. Mr. STANLEY, notwithstanding the very inge nious special pleading of his Right Hon. Friend— (Hear, hear)—in introducing a proposition to cover what he knew a negative was not tenable upon, would not do his duty if he did not openly give his disapprobation of what he must call this dsingenn ous shuffling underhand transaction. As to the ad vance to the manufacturers, he asked was there no difference in the cases ? In the one they found a Treasury minute made, when Parliament was not sitting, for a grant of 50,000/. The grant, how ever, was not made, but in the interim 15,0001. was given ; and on the 15th of the next Jcne there was a Treasury minute stating that that sum was to be repaid, and transferring the remaining 35,000/. to the overwhelming mass disposed of for Bucking ham House. The Right lion. Gentleman opposite (the officer of the Duchy of Lancaster) had not said a single word to the question, but merely defended himself. The Right Hon. the Master of the Mint went more deeply into the subject, and com menced a species of argument, ad invidiam, by appealing to the friends of Mr. Canning not to allow a censure to be passed upon his conduct. He did not complain of the facts stated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, for his account of the Bill was correct, as was his statement that Lord Goderich said the expence would be somewhere about 200,0001. That might be vague, but his Right Hon. Friend argued as vaguely, for when he asked if Parliament had voted, and were ready to provide for the residence of the Monarch, he (Mr. Stanley) would ask why were there not any estimates of the expence made up to this present moment, and why in the interim were these sums appropriated to Buckingham House, for which a different applica tion was intended by Parliament. He would not refer to the Finance Committee, since it seemed to be improper, but simply to the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arbuthnot). The surplus revenue of the Woods and Forests _was stated by hitn to amount to 70,000/, per annum, and the work to be carried on was to cost 250,000/. In the whole period, to the present moment, how ever•, there had been only 27,000!. advanced for it by the Commission. There had been other votes for now streets and buildings by the House, on the ground of the expenditure upon Buckingham-house, while no more than 27,000/. had been paid it. He would be glad to know why 55,000/. had been granted for York-house by those, Commissioners, while they alleged themselves to be in such distress, His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Huskisson) had said that this would he a droit if it were not for an Act of Parliament. If it was a droit the accounts should have been laid before Parliament in the next Session, • and his Right Hen. Friend only made it a droit to do away with the little inconvenience of rendering an account. His Right Hon. Friend also said this was not appropriated by Parliament, and there were no words in the 'Act for that purpose. That was true, nor could he conceive any Act of Parliament which, placing money at the actual disposal of the Treasury, would not disgrace diem if it laid down as a rule that the responsible officers of the Crown should render• such an account in terms, He wished the subject to be divested of all technicalities of the law, and the subtleties of his Right Hon. Friend, and he was sure there was no one, laying his hand on his breast, who would not say, that this, it not a misapplication, was, at least, a no.llect. HUSKISSON exobtiued. Mr. Secretary PEEL wished to address himself to the question on the principle adverted to by the Hon. Gentleman, namely, that of laying aside tech nical considerations. The main question was, had the Treasury the power of appropriating 250,000/., and admitting it to be legal, still did they exercise their authority so improperly as to call on the House to mark their conduct with censure. Nothing was more unjust than the proposal, and he was prepared to concur in a direct negative, He wished in con sidering this part of the question that all inclined to censure would look at the debates on the power of the Crown after the '1 reaty of Paris in 1816. That power the Crown had over other funds derived both from and subsequent to the Treaty. The trium phant issue of the war gave us funds of three descrip tions ; first, 700,0001. prior to the Treaty ; then an indemnity to Great Britain to a considerable amount ; and then the money now the subject of consideration. The first fund was given by the Goveinotent to sop pot t the army in France, without any vote of Prtrii., went, and the right to do so was never .levied. Of de Cent indemnity 1,000,0001. was also applied for the T:ritish armv,without the intervention of Parliament, and with its tacit acquiescence. How then could they vote for the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, who said that all grants of money without the interference of Par- liament were unconstitutional. The questio❑ was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, " that the application of any monies granted by treaty to other 3 purposes than the public service without the consent of Parliament, had a tendency to impair the constitutional power of the House of Commons." That motion was ne- gatived without a division; and when Lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning knew that, he asked was it fair that the House should turn round and vote contrary to their pre vious resolution ? lie admitted that those funds of which he spoke were of a different nature from that at present before the Ilouse. That fund came from France, for dividuals who suffered by confiscation ; and if ever the claims of parties were made good, the Crown had still the power to pay them by the sale of its property in Ireland. The words of the Act of Parliament were—" That the ha- lance should be reserved, and applied to such other pur poses as the said Lords Commissioners should direct," making no reservation of it in favour of the Excheqmr, but expressly stating that it was to be applied to such other purposes as the Treasury' should direct. In 1767, the 7th George 111., a sum of 400,0001. was received i❑ re- spout of the revenue of certain territories, then lately ac quired by the East India Company. That revenue, the House would observe, resembled, inone respect, the money which formed the subject of the present motion. Like it, it was a revenue of a peculiar nature—it was a casual re venue, not anticipated, and provided by the votes of Par liament, nor referred to in the estimates laid before the House. That sum was paid over to his Majesty—that is, paid over to the Ministers of the Crown, to be appropriated to public purposes. It was paid to his Majesty, not for his private or personal expenditure, but as be (Mr. P.) had stated, for public purposes. He would again call on the House to refer to the terms of the Act, where it says— " And be it enacted Oat the monies paid il, pureuance of this Act, be reserved, disposed, and applied as Parliament shall direct." In legislating on subjects of this nature, it was evident that a clear distinction was unithrinly main tained between the sums placed at the disposal of the Trea sury and those to be appropriated according to the direc tions of Parliament. Was there not, therefore, in the existence of such a distinction, sufficient to create a doubt in the mind of an honest and independent Minister, as to the necessity of calling on Parliament to sanction the ap propriation of that money? Then lie would intreat the House to observe that this money was applki to the purposes of a loan; at the same time that he was perfectly willing to admit that if the step were to be taken over again he should advise the cominuoicatioa k of it to Parliament. Ilowever, in snaking that i admissiots he was not to be considered as acknowledging that ii public Minister, in the advertence and hurry attendant on the business of the Session, had done such an act, and had not so deliberately considered the question in all its bearings as to see the expediency of taking the sense of Parliament upon it, that he, as a Member of Parliament, was to declare hind culpable. It was one thing to pro nounce a censure on au set once done, end another to pro vide a remedy against the recurrence of the evil. If the House looked to the whole utsaction, they must see that there existed at ao period the slightest design of coneeal. merit. And, in order to form a right estimate of the nature of an action and the degree of immeence or criminality attached to the action, they were always bound to consider the animus. The Ministers who dealt with these monies must have known tat ultimate con gealment was altogether impracticable. In the triennia; Report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, it must sooner or later appear. Now that lie bad mentioned the subject of a triennial report, he begged to state that he had nut the slightest objection tIO the report, instead of being triennial, should in future he annual. He was willing, to concur in any remedy that might be deemed neeessary for the public service or the public satisfaction. When in the Finance Committee he made an admission of that natme, and when in the House he was reminded of that admission, and advantage taken of it—(Loud ebeers)—and culled nit to concur in a vote of censure, be felt fully justified in ale daring, that he would never be a party to any such vote. Ile would never concur with a vote of censure upon one who was removed from the stage of public affitirs, or upon another who hail no opportunity of explanation or defence a If any imperative public duty demanded that such eensare• should be pronounced, no personal consideratian—neither the death of one, nor the calamity of another—should ins terfere with the right performance of that duty, or prevent that visitation of censure which the conduct of the "lattices might seem to deserve. But he could not conceal from himself that were he so called, that it would be the most painful task which, under any circumstances, he could con ceire possible. After the course of public services in which the character, talents, and integrity of the one Minister hail procured Sir him so high a station—after the time had arrived when they might almost speak of the respect due to the manors of the other—he confessed he found no appetite for censurin,; both, or either. When he recollected, too, that in ties course of the present Session due homage had been paid to the character of the one—and wht' he recolleetcal where, at some moments the calamity of the other might pre ,a ; leas heavily ; when lie thought of the possibility of, nia seeking to a conseiousness that he should rind the ualy no, rice taken of his public service to be an attempt to britmn his name with censure, under the f.9th Geo. HI. cap, respecting the appropriation of 250,0001. ; he could needr consent that such should be the only public notice to be taken of the services of Lord Liverpool.—(Loud cheering.) Lord JOTIN RUSSELL contended that the public services of Lord Liverpool formed no justification of the Act referred to. Mr. BROUGHAM considered did of all grounds, that which rested the justification of the measure upon the talents, integrity, and public services of Ministers now no longer in the administration of public, afltt'eas was the least. tenable. Men in the transactions of private life might 4. 0 guilty of trifling slips, but the defence ofa Mieister fur apply - , ing, in such an unconstitutional manner, a stun of 24„0001, ought to rest on stronger grounds than an assertion than it was an inadvertency, an oversight, a slip ; these was no man who reflected impartially for a moment that could doubt than it was, to say the least of it, a great irregularity. The Right Hon. Gent. had adverted to a suet of 700,0001., which was quite in the nature of booty ; that, however, was vested in the disposal of Pailiainent, and was conaequentt• no way analogous to the present case. Other sule, like that then under consideration were vested in tbe_ shiners of the Treasury, not to be disposed •,,: f as their ca price might direct, but to be applied the exerci se of a were no render an account sound discretion, and they their stewardship in respect a them. There was no de nial of the fact, that by the loan thus alleged to have been made, a much more lavish expenditure took place than otherwise would have occurred. Could any man doubt, that inasmuch as 250,0001. was expended in a year and a half instead of 70,0004, that, in consequence thereof, there was a much more lavish mode of conducting the, work than Parliament had ever contemplated ? The whole of the work was uncontrolled; no estimates were ever laid before the House; the sc a l e a pp eare d to be governed by no rational principle of limitentiou. Something had been said of the indelicacy of o bj ec ti ng to such application of the public money a.s the present case presented. For himself he had tie sort of objection that a Palace should be erected suitable to the Monarch and the people, but he thought it absurd and unjustifiable to make an attempt to entrap votes by way icon two years ago, and accidentally dis hy any reference to the supposed indelicacy of such an appliedlpt as the motion of his Honourable Friend involved. It was due to the House and the country, that this money, covered by the Finance Committee, should b e exp li c i t l Y zkeaunte df or . He believed that the con d uct of the par ties could scarcely leave a doubt, that had not the Finance Committee made the discovery in question, it would have remained to that hour without being accounted for. Upon the grounds which he had stated, as well as iuflueuced by the considerations suggested by many Bon. Members who had gone before him, he should give his cordial suppm t to the motion of his Hon. Friend. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR replied. The question was, had the Treasury Power to dispo-e of 250,000/. without the knowledge or consent o f P ar li ament ? Was it justified in withholding from the House of Comtuons this new applica tion of the public money ? The circumstance had beds wilfully c oncea l e d , au d , b ut f or t h e Finance Committee, h. wee satisfied would never have been discovered. Ile defied any man to say this was not a gross violation and infringe ment of the privil e ges of the House. The House then divided—when the numbers appeared, For the previous question lBl Against it , lO2 31ajority against the resolutions.... '79 The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House a djourned at Three o'Clock. THE SHANNON.—This magnificent vessel made her first voyage front London to Dublin this week, ' , tailing on Sunday, and landing her passengers at Kingb ttwn before six o'clock on Wednesday. She stopped on the passage three hours at Plymouth, and five hours at Falmouth. Iletwten these ports, which the passengers u visit if they pleased, she made a passage of 45 miles is three bowl. Nurniky Rr ister. ' l ll N‘ipt