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

LUNATIC ASYLUM BILL

Mr. R. GORDON moved the Third Reading of
the Lunatic Asylum Bill. •
Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved, by way of
rider, a clause to regulate the expences of raising
money in certain cases.
Mr. SEYMOUR objected to the clause.
BENETT supported the clause.
Lord ALTHORP wished to know whether it
was left to the option of the magistrates to carry
this Bill into effect ?
Sir E. KNATCHBULL would leave it to the
majority of the Magistrates.
Mr. GORDON made a few observations in a low
voice ; and the clause was then put and carried.

ALLEGED MISAPPLICATION OF PUBLIC
MONEY.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said,- that he trusted to
the indulgence of the House, having sat in it forty
years, in bringing the motion of which he had given
notice forward. In speaking of the jealousy of that
House, with respect to the issuing of public money,
he need not refer to the records of Parliament in
proof of it. That jealousy was se well known a
characteristic of that House, that he should` deem it
needless to seek for proofs of it. If we severed
this jealousy from the Representatives of the people,
we should tap the very foundations of the national
independence arid welfare. He would not weaken.
the self-evident truth of this by any argument of his.
Sufficient it was for his purpose that the principle
was *established, from the assertion of which he.
would not shrink, that that House had a right to '
control the expenditure of public money, let it come
into the hands of the Commissioners of Taxes iu
what shape it might.L-(Hear, hear.) Any viola-
tion of this principle by the. Government was' a
violation of the privileges of that House, and a de-
reliction from duty, on the part of Ministers, highly
censurable.—( hear, hear.) He would no longer
detain the House with arguments on this plain pro-
position, which, if any one chose to deny, he was
sure would be met with but one feeling on the part
of that House. He would next proceed to a state-
ment of the facts which had given rise to the re-
solution with which he meant to conclude. If
these facts established the case, he thOught there
had been a gross violation of the -privileges of that
House. From papers before the House, and from
facts that had come to his knowledge, and which he
believed to be true, and he challenged Honourable
Gentlemen on the other side .of. the House to
disprove them, he meant to show that the Resolution
'Oiith which he should conclude 'was' correct.
of them, or at any rate a great number of them,
Inust recollect the unfortunate war which so long
distracted Europe, and wore out this country. From
the consequences which followed that war, the coun-
try might never recover, and it was from some of
them that his motion took its rise. At the close of
this unfortunate war it was found that .many of the
subjects of Great Britain had strong claims on the
Government of France, and in the Treaty of Paris
therefore, in May, 1814, it was stipulated that the
French Government should assign a certain portion
of money into the hands of Commissioners appointed
by this country for the liquidation of these claims.
An Act was passed, the 59th of the late King, in
which certain Commissioners were nominated to
award and liquidate these claims, and of course they
proceeded to the objects of their inquiry, and had,
no doubt, ,acted as persons so circumstanced ought
to act. He did not mean to refer to the whole of
that Act of Parliament, but there was the conclusion
of one clause, which it was necessary the House
should be in possession of. The part to which he
alluded, enacted that in case. all such claims should
be liquidated, the money should be appropriated to
such other purpose as the Commissioners of the
Treasury, or any three of them, should appoint;
that-was, whenever there was a surplus over the
claims, it was to be at the disposal of the Lords of
the Treasury, or any three of them, that number
forming a quorum. There was an Act of the 6th of
Geo. IV. to enable the Commissionere of WoOds.
and Forests, who, by the 4th of the King were to
pay certain sums to the Consolidated Fund, instead
of so doing, to pay over 70,000/. per 'car of it: to
defray the expenses attending the building or re-
building of Buckingham Palace. Of this grant only
27,0001. was actually advanced to defray the ex-
penses attending the actual building, the rest haVing
been applied to the alterations of the gardens and
building of the stables. At the same time the
words of the Act might be so construed as to mean
that all the expenses attending any part of Buck-
ingham House were to be defrayed out of the
hereditary revenue of the Crown, subject to the
controul of the Commissioners of Woods and Fo-
rests. This work was undertaken in 1825, and
into its propriety he did not mean to enter. He was
quite convinced that the vote of any sum of money
necessary for the maintenance of the splendour of
the Crown would be cheerfully acquiesced in by :the
people of this country; but he was equally convinced
that any improper diversion of a sum voted by Act
of Parliament from its intended purpose would be
deemed unjustifiable, and ought to be visited with
. punishment. This was no party question, but one
Which would go to decide whether the King's Mi-
niSters had the power of disposing at their plea4ure
of any surplus sum of money that might by .accident
fall into their hands,' whithout consulting Parlia-
ment, even though Parliament should be then sit-
ting. The case before the House, he considered to
involve a most clandestine issue. During the whole
of the periods in which the money had issued, Par-
liament had actually been sitting—no delay could
therefore have been apprehended; and consequently
no 'excuse could be offered for Ministers in having
omitted to apply for the consent of the Legislature
to that which, without it, became a misappropria-
tion. Parliament would have only to declare that,
although only one sum of 70,0001. had bgen Paid
out of the gross amount ordered to be advanced by
annual payments of 70,0001. for the building and re.
pairs of palaces, it would be expedient to appro.
priate the surplus in question, arid there would have
been an end of the difficulty. That had not been
done, however, and he could only account for Lord
Liverpool's omitting the formal necessary steps by
supposing that his Lordship found that large sums of
money were demanded of him, and that lie had no
other mode of meeting those demands than
by this min-appropriation. The defalcation hav-
ing been discovered by the Commissioners of Inquiry
(as we understood) it was determined to apprise
Lord Liverpool of that fact. On the Report being
made by his Noble Friend (Lord Farnborough) then
at the head of the Woods and Forests, the Chief
Commissioner of Liquidation was sent for, and in
answer to questions put to him, stated all the circum•

stances of the transaction. The House would',
lect the similar .approyriation 'of ' another Orr
tri
which had been 'facetiously- termed, a " God-soli,
and on the same ground he supposed the case 0,4
consideration would be treated as siinilarly w,
posable; but he held O that that fund W mitre?'
that considerable caution should have leen esti'
—great reluctance evinced, and a strong ease i
necessity made out, before. such an appliettioP, •
money should have been directed without the 0:
Lion of Parliament. He understood nothing of viv;
was called State Policy, but he understood p
truth, which would be always, found to be
~t
safest guide, and which in the present ease w
that which ought to have been followed. The &if
missioner (of Liquidation) was asked-" what Of,
of this fund is there remaining?" lie.'reri
" 300,000/., I think, but I am quite sure We" lioal,
your disposal 2.50,0001."—(A laugh.)—" We °
said the other party," we will dispose of it for Pt
—(Laughter.)—The appropriation consequently
place, but without authority. In this case it ishii.
workable that the Treasury Minute for;tll* lisite,,
the first 100,0001., was dated twenty days after 74
issue.—(Hear.)—The issue took place on the !)
of March, 1826, and the Treasury Minute. of
Liverpool bore date 30th of March, in the sdo
year. The Treasury Minute stated, moreover, ts,
the motey was to be appropriated to defray ti
expense of erecting and improving Bucking'',
Palace, which appropriation was in direct control";
don of the Act of Parliiment which had affi
priated other funds for that purpose. The •TresOf ,
Minute further stated that- the money was -to
paid when called for. ; it
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ I-) ,T.,, Pa. '
Repaid.—(A laugh.)
('
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR—" Well, repaid—boti
it had been so repaid, we should never haie had
knowledge of the transaction." This (the .),V•
Gentleman proceeded to contend) was thelatio.
sum that had been clandestinely applied sincell
Revolution. The Commissioners of Woods ro,
Forests had no power to accept of it. NO 119
Member could for a single moment attempt
maintain that the, framers of the Bill for the aPl'i
priation of the fund in question had ever in Yie::l3
disposal of the money different from that preset,
by the Aet. In order /o bring the matter fully'
fore the House, he had moved for a return, sirDS:l
when presented, he found imperfect. It was atOgrj
ed by a statement (as we understood) that there l'4
a part of it applied to the relief of the stocA;
manufacturers—but it would be found that the on
so advanced for the relief of the manufacturers
to
been all repaid—while—although this .ss'Ofr 'vl
month of June, 1828—and that two years
.:',.
elapsed since the other sums had been misar

5 nett been misag',l
priated—not a single shilling of it had been re,,
by the-Commissioners of Woods and Forests.
sum of 250,000/. had been thus advanced:—
On the 10th March, 1826 —XIOO,OOO
On the Bth Feb., 1827
On the 25th March, 1827
On the 30th June, 1827 . . 15,00(U
Part of that money, it would lie seen, had ");
advanced while Lord Liverpool was, t;fortunate,'
not able to attend to business. If this mis-sPFAI'II
priation were to be permitted, it might be 501.,'"?,
the subscribers to the erection of Waterloo nrile
that as they were losing money lay their adventure,
Treasury was ready to advance money, for their rel'it
and thecase might be multiplied ad infinitum. Ids
not think that the Treasury people were fool=, butt:,
the present case they had acted as if they were -'0
it would have- cost them very little trouble to 13',,
obtained the sanction of Parliament for an
which, wanting that authority, was tinjust,,,
able. In reply to the charge that the trausacol,
had not been brought before Parliament, it, wouljni
contended that in the Triennial Report of the Coo
missioners it would appear, but that was a
subterfuge—and even if it did appear it would
that there had been no authority for the Act it'4•l
It now became necessary for hires to cite eusei
support of the line of argument he had purfal;
and of the resolutions, with proposing which
meant to conclude. The first of these was the
of Sir E. Seymour, who, in the reign of Charl,„6„,,
(1680), was impeached, for that he, being 1101
surer of the Navy, did lend 90,000/. out of a
sup
of 584,0001. appropriated for the building of 5111,4 f
towards the contingencies of the army. theie
1711, a Committee had been appointed to jet.
into the reasons of the increase of the public vily
dens, and reported that that increase had been
caused by the application of this public money, 01
reference to that particular case. In 17905 e
stronger precedent occurred, but which was,
same time, nothing like the present. Mr. Pi',
excuse was founded on extreme necessity ; bild itoc
the present instance no such necessity COr,
pleaded. When attacked by Mr. Fox, Mr. Pick to
plied, that while we were at war he did not
open the Councils of the country to the public' pJ
had advanced 200,000/. to the Prince of Conde,
other sums to the Emperor; yet, with all the
quence Mr. Pitt was master of, and with an ph
popularity, he felt himself placed in a predicate
in which, had he not been aided by Mr. 13rTai.
arid other friends (of whom Lord Sidmouth.,Afe,
one) the vote of censure of Mr. Fox would Areic
been carried. [Here the Hon. Gentleman recito
the terms of Mr. Fox's vote, which stated t,,",1e
his Majesty's Ministers having commanded (w?
Parliament was sitting) the issue of various s'lol
of money without the sanction of Parliament, ,
acted contrary to their duty, and contrary oitio
trust reposed in them."} That had occurre)
time of war, and Mr. Bragge's amendment
" that the measure for advancing certain surn:d
money for the service of the Emperor, altbetift
under,,,
ought not to be drawn into a precedent, was,
peculiar circumstances of the country, j
Now he would ask, could the Ministers of the fel
sent day assert that any peculiar exigency requl'het
their departure from the line of their duty?
case occurred in 1805 growing out of an advanceij,
40,000/. to assist the house of Boyd and Bcr'6,e/
which he could not help characterizing as all ar
of power of the most dangerous nature. Mr' Aope
defended that act, on the ground of its bein.g,"oo
for the purpose of sustaining the credit of s
which must have otherwise failed and produced.gfliyr
loss to the public. But where was there if° fo'
ustitifiavobtlo(
necessity to be found in the present cane ? cbd
from being an act of expediency or necessitY,l-fer
been only a downright assumption of power. ,0
the former act a cause was stated—for the P. ieJi
none, MR: of that fact the actors in it were coilvilop'
for it was quite clear that it was intended to bed- tilt
cealed. The discovery was made by the Finances° eel,
Select Committees, and the result would, he 11°1
prove to be a God-send to the public, who woulV
trusted, receive their 250,00 W. buck. He Oak
conceive a case more grievous—none rlwrebi3
direct violation of the privileges of that Hotlo6
occurred since the revolution--and he called til,)l
the House to show their disapprobation of it ,7
strong vote. With whatever talent, whateve`ts!
g"m", or whatever confidence, (of which id,
much \vas witnessed within the walls of tha til°l•lrt
the Act in question was sought to be defendedt,i
thanth o gab:
ai t
matter
rdinvolvingdifficult I:
privilegesdlsell sit Ootil r;
,10,
meat and the power of Ministers. Ministers.
this though funds for that purpose had been girl
the year before by authority of Pailiament;
0?
they misapplied this money to that purpose? 04
asserted it was right. If it was so, why was Jr a
stated to the House ? Was the House to gives
the most valuable of its privileges ? There
• no necessity for their conduct. Parliament
sitting. There needed to have been no deli,
It was a wanton concealment of the misaPlrit
tion of the public money, and against and in tl'ite
opposition to the principles of the British Coostibe
tion. He might have used more argument oe
subject, but contented himself with a plain and :!or,
pie statement of facts as they arose. As these 'oet
applied to the whole subject, the House hat-1110,e
means of judging, as representatives for the act
kingdoms, whether they ought not to visit 03

_t!leins;fv;
14`nopiitil
It yet abl,
the impu
%en I so
hiractei
Who is -y(
Sir, I ha
account

the trien
6bour ur
(ientlem

to the Ho
those N
must roe
Peati on
principle!
man has 1

Proceedi
be abou'
for this
the sale
Lon oft
funds in
4°llll, th.
Pro'ing
ehargeal
fund bei
the rel

Patric";
Prbitio,
furl jam
th• son

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 the Commissioners of Wooels and Forests, the sum
100,000/., on the 10th of March, 1827 ; 35,000/.
° the 7th of February, 1827 ; 100,0001. on the
16th March, 1827; and 15,000/. on the 3d of June,
1827; 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-
Itnee 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
10 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
alluded, it is stated, that the money was issued on
tile 10th of March, while the treasury warrant is dated
41y the 30th. But the fact is, and the money was
40t 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
be about 250,0001. The public funds most proper
for
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
crown 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
4gainst 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
the 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
to, in which meeting the Treasury decided, in con-
currence with the Secretary of State (for according
10 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
Claims. Tke 300,000/. would be at the disposal of
the Treasury, for public purposes. Thus, by the
Act of Parliament, the Treasury being authorised to
'44 with this surplus, all parties concurred in the
! appropriation of them, and that they did so concur
. ; each individual has since shown by subsequent acts
ofhis. Mr. Canning, in July 1827, and Lord
Liverpool and Lord Goderich, by measures of theirs,
'owed that they had concurred. They had a right
til
a employ this stun in
pthe manner they did, and
were applying
it to a just and proper object. I
klrant they were not warranted in applying it to any
' but plispose f to purposes for the pled of 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 never
touted it—they merely used it conditionally for u
t '
)entin public purpose, under circumstances which
:11t to diem the power of restoring that stun if ever it
f al4lld appear proper to Parliament to eall for it Y`
:1' this they had the authority of Parliament to
01'.0Y it to a public purpose. The Hon. Mover of
i.l"e resolutions has compared this Act with former
rtl'sures, to which, as precedents, it has no kind
i-li favour
; for if I were asked to chew a precedent
f„ '4VOLir of this measure, I could not find ;my E 0
taiv:Tarohle, thought of a contrary nature, than that of
, aio_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 ' prooio,
:1 par„ 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 transactionshad 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 cominuoicatioak
of it to Parliament. Ilowever, in snaking thatiadmissiots
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 defencea
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 exercise 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 scale appeared to be governed by no
rational principle of limitentiou. Something had been said
of the indelicacy of objecting
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 be explicitlY
zkeauntedfor. He believed that the conduct 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 of Parliament? Was it justified in
withholding from the House of Comtuons this new applica-
tion of the public money ? The circumstance had beds
wilfully concealed, aud, but for the 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 privileges 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 adjourned 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.

'lll

N‘ipt