The Sun.
London, England, 1802-03-30 00:00:00

of which he himself had formed a part; 'Alt the
Hon. Gentleman had been rather unfortunate in hi
precedents upoirthis,oceasion, .for. there. was not one
of them that was not an exception to the conclusion
which he wished to draw : because the Hon. Gen-
tleman had not been able to show a single instancs
in which, upon a case stared, the Debt had. not
been paid ; and he was sure he could not point out
any case in which all the circumstances-kid been so
fully explained, and all the fads so clearly laid before
the House, one which lay in so simple and narrow a
compass, one so 'completely free from every kind
of suspicion, as the one then before the Committee.
He therefore did not feel himself hound to argue at
large the question, whether Parliament, by grant..
ing the Civil List for life, had deprived itself oe
the power of relieving the Crown from occasional
embarrassments. He would not enter into a discussion
Of the Civil List, nor would he occupy the time
of the Committee, by arguing much upon the con-
struCtion of Mrs Burke's Bill, by which, the Hon.
Gentleman had contended that no debt upon the
Civil List' could legally exist.----With regard to this
construaion of that Bill, he could only say, that
it w(as one which he had never aced upon. His
Right Hon. Friend had stated, that there were
Many cases in which, subsequent to the passing of
than Bill, Parliament had 'been. apprized that debts
upon the Civil List had been incurred, and which
had not been considered as Violations of that Bill.
The Hon. Gentleman. had spoken of an argumentonz
ad homines, and had objeaed to any inference being
drawn from it; but he contended, that he had a
right to press that argument, 'particularly if it
related to. a period near to that when the Bill
,passed, and when of course, if the -Bill had been
violated, those by avhom it was brought- in would
not suffer it to he - violated without censure.---
If the Honourable Gentleman would turn to :the
journals, he would find that the first excess upon
the Civil List, after Mr. Burke's Bill, arose in the
year ending the sth of April, 1784; at that time
he (Mr. PITT) had been three months in office, and
the otlternine months- of the year, the Hon. Gentle,:
man himself was Secretary of State, Mr. BURKE
was Paymaster, and Lord GEORGt CAVENDISH
was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It appeared dis-
tinaly upon the Journals, that during the three last
quarters of the year 1783, when 'those Gentlemen
-were in office, there was an exceeding upon the
Civil List to the sameamount as in the first quarter
of the.- year 1784. This excess was laid before
Parliainent, and -was voted without- any objection
of_this kind being urged against -it ; therefore it
was evident, that the construction now contended
for was not then considered as the real construe..
tion
.of the Bill. He confessed that this question
about tile` Construction of the Aet never came
into his mind ; .and in looking at the words of
the ACS, it certainly was a matter of doubt.—
Undoubtedly, if Mr.. Burke's Speech was referred
to in order to construe the-Aft, 'it might have been
the construCtion the Hon. Geotkrnao put upon it ;
but it was rather singular that. Mr. Buttta, who
was not only a diligent and watchful Member of
Parliament, hut a severe and hostile opposer of
Ministers at that period, .should not have said one
word -about the violation of his own Aft, or con-
tend for any such construction as that for which the
Hon. Gentleman had now argued. In 1786, the
subject was again brought under the notice of Par-
liament, and though- he did not like to revert to
accounts of debates which were often incorrea, yet
certainly Nlr. BURKE' did not upon that occasion
make any such object ion ; arid the Motion passed
without a division, though, at that time, very few
questions passed without long discussions and divi.
sions. Now, if the construction which the Hon.
Gentleman now contended for, had been at that
time considered as the true construction of the Bill,
he would ask any candid man whether it waa likely,
in the state of Parties at that day, to have been
given up without any comment, and without notice ?
He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would consider this
as a sufficient answer to- his argument. But the Hex.
nourable Gentleman had said that every thing which
Parliament might not happen to take notice of,
was not therefore to be considered as tacitly ac.
knowledged : certainly not in every instance ; but
the Hon. Gentleman's argument did • not apply in
this case. was not a mere paper .laid before
Parliament, and which might have escaped its no-
tice ; because it related to A very important subject,
it -did occupy the attention of Parliament, and was
aged upon. But the arguMent did not stop here,
for in 1789 there was another application to Parlia-
ment, in-consequence of one of the Royal Family
coming of age ; the subjea was again discussed, hnt
no-such construction was even
.hinted at. Before
the War, the arrears undoubtedly were intonsider-
able, but after the War had commenced, the subject
was two or three times befc#re Parliament, when
the arrears begun to be considerable ; so that it ap-
peared during all the- period, iand- under all the eh--
cumatances he had mentioned, such a construction
as that now contended for had fiber been put upon
this Bill. • -This observation applied also as an
answer to another of the Honourable Gentleman's
arguments, which was; that the late Ministers
had kept- Parliament in the dark upon this sub-
ject.' Instead of which, it appeared that they
had been acquainted with it, and had given their
apnrobation by acting upon it. This appeared to
him to be all that was -necessary to state upon this
part of the subjea.• If, however, Gentlemen thoaght
that it was a matter of charge -against the Kieg's
late Ministers, let that charge be made : the Hon.
Baronet opposite to him might. bring it forward
among the others, if his memory should enable hint
to bring forward his Charges better than it had
served him in giving notice of them to-night. Even
if that was a
.gtound of charge against Ministers,
still it was no reason against paying the- Debts in
question ; it was no reason for not supporting the
-just dignity of the Crown, or for refusing to-do
,justice to the parties concerned. As every Gen-
"thstnan had such ample opportunity of reading the
Report; and after the very full and able manner in
which the subjea had been introduced by his Right
Hon: Friend, it would not be necessary for him to
• take up much of the time of the Committee in shew.
ing 'that this stun ought to be paid.. It had been con.
fessed, that up. to the period of the War, the- excess
beyond the estimate did not exceed 25,0001. a- year.
This the Hon, Gentleman seemed inclined to over-