The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-11 00:00:00

the Government, withdrew it. It was a rule of the House, that no
public money should be advanced without consent of the House ;
yet here was 270,0001., granted, or rather smuggled through
the House under the disguise of a private Bill. 200,0001.
had already been expended, and by this Bill, 270,0001. more
was required for the purpose of finishing the work. He
would prophecy that the work would never be finished, and the
30,0001. would be lost, unless the House would agree to give half
a million more, or if the Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer
would grant a Committee, perhaps some part of the money
might be recovered. After reading some extracts from letters
against the completion of the undertaking, the Hon. Gentle-
man moved for a copy of the warrant under which the 30,0001.
were paid, &c.
Mr. :HAWES was happy at having an opportunity of
giving the most direct answer to this most extraordinary
statement of the Hon. Member for Berkshire.—( Hear.)
When the Hon. Member put a question on this subject
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was not present
but he afterwards told the Honourable Member that he would
give him any information in his power. From that time the
Hon. Member had not had the least communication with
him, nor was he aware that he was to bring this subject
before the House. There was not a single fact stated by the
Honourable Member that was not borne out by evidence,
and the information on which he had spoken was without
the slightest foundation. No Bill had been brought in on this
subject—the money had been advanced from the Treasury, nor
was he aware that there was the slightest degree of irregu-
larity in it.
Sir R. PEEL did not understand the Hon. Gentleman op-
posite (the Member for Berkshire) as saying that any specific
Bill had passed for the purpose of granting the sum men-
tioned to the Thames Tunnel Company.
Mr. HAWE S begged permission to interrupt the Right
Hon. Baronet, and to appeal to the Hon. Member for Berk-
Shire himself as to the description he gave of the Act under
which it was alleged that the sum in question had been granted.
Mr. WALTER said he had the Act in his pocket. It wals
the Thames Tunnel Act, and had received the Royal assent
on the 28th of August, 1833.
Mr. H AWE S was understood to reply, that no money had
been advanced under that Act.

Sir R. PEEL observed, that the Hon. Member on the other
side appeared to attach much more importance to the circum-
stance of the Hon. Member for Berkshire not having gone to
the office of the Company to inspect their books and papers
than a matter of that sort appeared to deserve ; it was surely
no reflection on him that he had not done so, and it was per-
fectly natural that, as a Member of that House, he should not
wish upon public grounds to obtain copies of public documents
for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of money obtained,
the terms upon which the advance was made, and the prospect
which remained to the public of repayment, by the tolls or
otherwise. As a 'Member of that House he had a right to call
for that information, and to inquire the Parliamentary grounds
of the whole proceeding. The Hon. Member for Lambeth
had attempted to answer the argument on the subject of
no engineers having been consulted in reference to the
present grant, by saying that such a step had been ren-
dered perfectly needless by reason of one-half of the work
having been already completed, and that their knowledge
of what that cost must necessarily enable them to know
the probable cost of the remaining portion of the undertaking.
Now, it was too much to assume that the cost of one portion of
the work would not be greater than that of the other; surely
such a mode of reasoning could not be expected to produce
conviction in the mind of any Hon. Member, and it was
quite fitting that due inquiry should be made before a further
advance of public money took place. For these reasons, he
was quite of opinion that nothing could be more natural, no-
thing more strictly Parliamentary, than the motion of the Hon.
Member for Berkshire.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that the speech of the Hon. Mover certainly had invited the
discussion into which his Hon. Friend behind him had entered ;
at the same time he fully acknowledged the right of inquiry.
The House had every right to inquire bow the money was te
applied, and what were the prospects as well of repayment as
of the ultimate completion of the undertaking : and he, there-
fore, should not offer the slightest objection to the productio,
of those documents for which the Hon. Member for Berkshire
moved; but he must be allowed to observe, that he thought
the speech which the House had that night heard, had much
better been deferred until the requisition contained in the mo-
tion was complied with. Consenting to the motion as he did
without hesitation, he trusted he might be allowed to suggest,
that its being moved as an amendment to the question of going
into Committee of Supply, was rather inconvenient; he trust-
ed, therefore, that the Hon. Mover would consent to with-
draw it for the present, with the understanding that, like all
motions made by consent, it might be brought on just before
the rising of the House, when the Hon. Gentleman would be
allowed to make the motion without opposition, or it would be
made for him. He wished merely to add, that the grant to
which the motion referred was not made since he had received
the appointment of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in the
time of his Noble Friend, Lord Spencer. He felt, however,
that the grant was in every respect defensible ; it was surely
expedient not to leave so great a public undertaking incom-
plete; it would, in his opinion, be a kind of national reproach
if it were not finished.

Sir R. PEEL said it was certainly his opinion, that when
money was required for public purposes, it would be dangerous
to admit the practice of having it granted by orders from the
Exchequer, without giving Parliament any opportunity to jualge
of the prospects of repayment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I agree
with the Right Hon. Baronet.
After a few words from Mr. WARD, which were not.
heard,
An Hon. MEMBER (we believe Mr. B. Baring) said that
the payment in question had been sanctioned (as we under-
stood) by the Commissioners under a Treasury order.
Mr. WALTER said, the Commissioners appointed for tl e
loan of Exchequer Bills on security of public works had twice
refused any money to the Thames Tunnel Company—first
in September, 1831, and next in September, 1833. The sun:
now granted, it appeared, had been obtained under the autho-
rity of an Act of Parliament, of which he would venture to
say that 99 Members out of every hundred had no knowledge
whatever. As to the offer that had been made to him, re-
specting an opportunity of inspecting books, papers, &c., be
certainly had not availed himself of that offer by the Hon.
Member for Lambeth, for he preferred going to the fountain
head, and he had taken all the pains in his power to verify the
statements he had made, by reference to the most authentic
sources of information ; he, therefore, felt confident that the)
could not successfully be impugned ; but it appeared to him
best, after what had been said by the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to adopt his suggestion.
He would therefore, withdraw the motion for the present,
as its object would be attained at a more advanced hour of the
evening.
After a few words frem Mr. WARBURTON, which were
not distinctly heard, the motion was postponed, as suggested
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LAY PATRONAGE IN THE CHURCH OF
SCOTLAND.

Mr. A. JOHNSTON rose to move, as an amendment to
the question of going into a Committee of Supply, his motion,
of which he had given notice, the object of which was to
abolish lay patronage in the Church of Scotland.
Mr. HUNIE hoped the Hon. Member would excuse hQ
observing, that as the inquiry upon that subject had not yet
terminated, a motion like the present could lead to no prac-
tical result.

Mr. A. JOHNSTON certainly should not on any such
grounds consent to forego his privilege of making the in-
tended motion for an address to the Crown, praying his Ma-
jesty's consent to the introduction of a Bill for abolishing lay
patronage in Scotland. In his judgment, one of the greatest
evils at the present moment connected with the Church of
Scotland was the existence of lay patronage ; was it to be
supposed that an evil of that magnitude admitted of no re-
medy ? The Hon. Member then entered into a statement of
the numbers who had petitioned in favour of and against the
measure which he intended to introduce, but in consequence
of the noise that prevailed in the House, he was occasionally
inaudible. He observed, that in reference to lay patronage,
the practice of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite was to dis-
pose of all the livings in the gift of the Crown according to
the wishes of the majority of the heritors, but it ought to have
been recollected that in addition to the heritors there was a
Christian congregation in each of the parishes. At all events,
they had now arrived at such a point that they must do
something to regain for the Church the affections of the peo-
ple. He then intimated that it was his intention to propose
the repeal of the Act of Queen Anne regarding lay patronage,
a repeal which, if it had been effected long before now, would
have produced great benefit to the Church ; but, in proposing
that, he did not mean to leave them all at sea, but really
to put the system of patronage upon a popular and satisfac-
tory footing. He was aware they had been told that the•,
ought to wait till they saw what the General Assembly would
do. It was already known that that Assembly had already
adopted a half measure, which pleased neither party, and was
therefore not good for anything ; he had, therefore, no difficulty
in saying that the Church ought to be improved by Parlia-
ment. The Hen. Member having concluded by making the
motion given above,
Mr. HARDY (as we understood) seconded it.
The LORD ADVOCATE did not consider the motion
of the Hon. Member of a nature so urgent that it need be per-
mitted to stop the House from going into a Committee of Sup.
ply—so far from that, be really thought that the great body of
the people of Scotland would consider it ought to be deferred
until the next session of Parliament, and left, for the present,
in the hands of the General Assembly.
Mr. F. MAU LE concurred with the Hon. Mover as to the
evils of lay patronage, but differed from him as to the expe-
diency of bringing forward a proposition for abolishing it, in
the shape of an amendment to the question of going into a
Committee of Supply ; were it brought forward in a sub-
stantive form it should have his support, for it was his de-
cided opinion that a complete change ought to be effected
in the system.
After a few words from Mr. S. Mackenzie, Sir G. Clerk,
Mr. C. Bruce, and Mr. Hardy,
Mr. A. JOHNSTON consented to withdraw the motion.
THE BUDGET.

Mr. M. ATTWOOD begged to ask the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite when he thought it would be in his power to
make his general statement respecting the finances of the coun-
try ? The great and unusual delay which had taken place on
that subject, was pregnant with very injurious consequences.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the delay had been occasioned by the state of public business.
He hoped that a great deal of business would be gone through,
in th'e course of that evening, and he assured the Hon. Gen-
tlema./ that he would take the earliest possible opportunity of
making the statement to which he had alluded.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
The .House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.