Star.
London, England, 1811-05-31 00:00:00

not of so much moment as refusing assent to a bill,
but in neither can it be for a moment maintained, that
there was any breach of the Constitution, or any vio-
lation of the privileges of the House. (Hear, hear.)
Therwer andrightundouhtedly resided in the Crown,
and if it was competent for Ministers tO advise accord-
ingly, could it he said that the Crown had a right to re.
fuse, and that Ministers, notwithstanding, had no
right to advise ? Tie one right was implied in the
other, and if the exercise of the right in one case was
constitutional, the advice in the other was equally
unobjectionable, so far as related to the legal
and constitutional question. But after all what had
been done? The answer to the Address was said to deny I
the power of the House of Commons to fulfil Or make
good the sum voted. This was by no means the case.
There was certainly no ditect power in the House of
Commons to make good of itself this sum; but they
might do it by other means, and this the answer had
sufficiently expressed. It stated, that the Crown
would be glad to comply with the wishes of the House,
when means were provided by Parliament for carry-
ing the • vote into effect. It by no means implied
want of trust in the House. Suppose the answer had
been, that the Re'tent would take the Address into
consideration; would this have been considered as a
refusal, or could any exception have been taken to it;
though it might have amounted to the same thing? In.
stead of this, however, belays he will not accede to
the vote till if is provided for by Parliament; and
tells them, that therefore they must take the course
of the other House. The subject of the Address has,
therefore, been cons;dered, and here is the answer ;
and if it was competent for.the Crown to return such
an answer, would any man say that Ministers were
culpable in giving this advice? He allowed it was
competent for the Commons to present an Address, i
but at the same time he denied that they could send up
any Address in command. or that the Crown had not
a right to refuse. He further contended, that there
was no one instance of any Address contrary to the
known opinions and wishes of this other House. It
might be asked, how did they know their opinions ?
Had the question never been agitated in the Lords,
this ground of argument might have been pleaded,
but the Lords opinion on the per tentage was well
blown, and if the knowledge of the proceedings of
the Lords on this subject was used against Ministers to
aggravate their supposed offence, it might be equally
used by them in justification of their conduct.—
They say ,it is .not for Ministers to interfere in any
differences between the two Houses, but do they say
that the Crown has no right to prevent any quarrel,
though it is allowiti to be the duty of the Crown to
do so by a dissolution of Parliament. They would
not certainly say that the Crown had only to look on
and see fair play..--(.4 lasik.)--The Right Honour.
able Gentleman bad endeavoured to mate it a ques..
tion of mere management and finance, and had ar-
gued on that principle, that the Lords had nothing
to do with it. He admitted that money questions
properly originated in that House ; but the Lords
had also a right to their opinion, and no Money
Bill could be passed without their concurrence.—
They might as well say that they had a right to
compel the assent of the Lords, as to call for the as-
sent of the Crown to an Address for money. The
case of Lord Chatham's monument, and the build-
ing of churches, had been alluded to ; but these
grants had passed by Bill, as well as the vote of money
for the payment of the salaries of the Officers or the
House. He animadverted here on the mode of . pm.
ceeding that had been adopted by the House, that
had tor its object to pa;s by the House of Lords, ind
to eludellte necessity of having their consent,
(Hear, hear.)—The mode of proceeding by Address
was highly objectionable, and particularly if it was re-
sorted to for the sake of passing over the Lords. The
Loan had been alluded 10, but it was well known
that though the money might be paid into the Bank,
not a farthing could be touched till it was sanctioned
by Act of Parliament. They had been also lately
taught by an authority, which he had no doubt the
Right Hon. qentlenian respected, that all, 'Act of
Parliament was necessary to get money out-of the
Exchequer, and not the order of the House of Com-
mons. It might be said that the functions of the Crown
were then suspended ; but if the Commons had the
right in themselves of disposing of the public money,
their interference was more necessary then than oil
any other occasion. (Hear, hear.). They were then
told, however, that the House of Commons had' no
right to order the disbursement of money without
the consent of the Lords. (Bear, hear.) He concluded
by contending, that the answer in question implied
no breach of the Constitution, and no violation of
the Privileges of Parliament, and said, he had at
first given his assent only to the introduction of
the subject before Parliament, as that line of conduct
had been adopted by his predecessor. It was not till
the Lords had rejected the measure, that he had given
it much opposition; and instead of being a reproach,
it ought to be to his credit, that his friends had divi.
ded against him on the question, as it shewed no in-
terference on -his port—(Hear, hear.)—The taking of
the grant out 61the Appropriation Act by the Lords
was not unprecedented. The Regent said, that when
the sum was provided for he should give his assent.....
'I 'his might be done in a Supply Bill, to which, for his
own part, he promised to give no opposition. Under
all circumstances. it was.not proper that the Regent
should concur in the Address; and, therefore, he
avowed the advice which his Royal Highness had been
pleased on this occasion to follow.
Mr. PONSONBY contended, that from the earliest
period the Constitution was known and acted on, it
had been the right of the House of Commons to dis-
pose of the public money. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man had observed, that in this case there might be no
'limit to their grants; but was it not for the House it-
self to judge whether 40 or at6o or whatever
should be the sum voted.—( Hear, I)—The Right
it,
Hon. Gentleman was here to bla that while he
admitted the right of the House to vote, he denied
its power to fulfil. Did he know no instance where
the Lords had given way to the Commons ? The opi-
nion of the Lords, therefore, could not justify the
offensive Answer in question. He contended, that it
was not necessary that every matter with respect to
money should go before the Lords, and that their con-
,cturence in grants was not indispensable. He blamed
'the Right Hon. Gentleman for pleading the cause of the
Lords in that House, is violation of their rights. He
conceived that there was no sort of similarity between
in Assent to an Act of Parliament and an Assent to an
Address. It was certainly in the power of the Crown

to refuse the first, in consistence with the Constitu-
tion ; but there could not be found an instance on the
Journals of a negative to the latter. The'Right Hon.
Gentleman had assumed to himself the aid and con-
sent of the other branch of the Legislature, to give a
direct offence to this House, and to create a differ-
ence between it and the Crown. He never expected
to stand in that House and hear the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman applauded for a speech in which he took part
with the Lords against the Commons.
Mr. WHITBREAD replied at considerable length.
He anticipated that he would vote in a small moo-
rity,and observed, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had
put into his mouth words which he had never uttered.
He had been accused of not being in his place when the
Answer to the Address was stated in the House. On
that occasion he had been employed in the transaction
of public business, but for the test of his general at-
tendance he would appeal to the Speaker. It was
• hard to be accused on one side for neglect, when on
the other he was blamed for a troublesome sort of ac-
tivity—(4 laugh) He adverted to the conduct of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in issuing money;
while the Throne was vacant, and observed, that that
circumstance was nut at all similar to the present. The
Right Hon. Gentleman, when beaten in this House,
could stoop to conquer, and go to other pl aces to seek
for success, onetime assisting, and at another curbing
the power of the Crown. Adverting to the Petition
to Queen Anne, respecting Portsmouth and Chatham,
he,remarked, that the House of Commons did not
say that they would make it good. If they had stopped
the other day at these words, would they have re-
ceived this ungracious answer ? Would the House
of Carmitons have been sent out to nurse and told,
you fools, you babies, take care, you will gef into
a quarrel with bigger boys than you, who will lick
you soundly."— (Hear, Hear.)
After a few observations from Mr. Rose, Mr. W.
Wynne, Mr. S. Thornton, and Mr. Whitbread,
Colonel PALMER said that if the Right Honotir' -
able Gentleman would allow this question to go to a
Court of Justice, he would answer for Mr. Palmer,
that he was ready to meet him there. He regretted,
however, that the principal evidence was now no more.
He wished to state to the House, that some time ago
an offer of compromise had been made to him by a
Gentleman commissioned, if not by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, by his Administration. At that time he
was about to embark with his regiment for foreign
service ; he wrote to the Right Honourable Gentle-
man respecting the offer, but he did not acknowledge
it; the person, however, he alluded to, was ready
to declare that he was so commissioned. (Name,
same, and criet of No.) He entreated the House to
consider the state of the individual who made this
application ; he was worn out with age, infirmity,
and disappointment. He for his own part thanked
Gon, that he had learned a lesson which adversity
alone could teach; he did not ask any thing for him-
self. So help me God," said the Honourable Gen-
tleman, " I will never accept any thing as a boon
which is refused to me as a right!" (Loud crier of hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, that he had no objection to bringing the question
into a Court of Law, but he did not think that
under circumstances it could be done. Regarding
the offer of compromise, he had not the slightest re-
collection of it. The House then divided—Ayes 68
—Noes 161—Majority 93.—The motion was acc(it-
dingly rejected.
On our re-entering the Gallery we found Mr.
BANRES on his legs, speaking on the Irish rebacco
POSTER supported the
'Sir JOHN NEWPORT opposed the Bill.
Mr. PARNELL wished to introduce a clause for
enabling every Catholic Officer and private to exer-
cise his religion discretionally, that they shall not at
any time be compelled to attend Protestant churches.
Mr. Secretary RYDER said, when he brought in
the bill he wished it to be understood that they should
exercise their religion; it was his intention to have that
part adjusted to the satisfaction of the Catholic soldier.

A:conversation took place between Mr. Bagwell,
Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Herbert, Dr. Duigenan, Mr
Babington, and Colonel Elliot, when the bill was or-
dered-to be read a third time on Wednesday next.
The Irish Militia Families Bill went through a
.Committee of the whole House, the Report of which
was ordered to be received to-morrow.—Adjourned
at half past one o'clock till this day.

THE EVENING STAR.

LONDOPT,

FRIDAY, MM'S!.
PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O'CLOCK.
Cons. money 64M—for seeeent 65
S per Cent. Redueeel 8911.-4 per Cent. 7914
5 per Cer.t. Navy 97f—Exeheq. is. 4k. to 511. prem.
Bonds 16i. 16e. pre.—OmMurn if pre.

A private letter has been received from China, via
America, stating, that the first division of the China
ships was to sail from thence early in January, sup-
posed to consist of the WINCHELSEA, WFJCFORD,
AR-
NISTON, EARL CAMDEN, ELPHINSTONE, CUFFNELLS,
IVOODFORD, and ALFRED. The direct ships had ar-
rived at China about the sth December last. The
DAVID SCOTT and CIRENCESTER bad not arrived, but
were daily expected. No accounts of the OCEAN had
been received so late as the 15th December.

We are still unable to lay before our Readers any
official details respecting the sanguinary Battle of the
16th ; but a short letter from one of the Aids-du-
Camp of Marshal Bertwoun, is in town, dated on
the 17th, in which he just states, that the Victory
was complete, 'after a hard-fought and sanguinary
Combat, for six hours and a half. The immense
havoc among the Allies is ascribed to a sortie which
was made by the Garriion of Badajoz, which fell
upon the rear of the allied troops. There is no idea
of the Battle being renewed the next day, as the
French loss is estimated higher than that of the Allies;
and their remaining force must, therefore, be unequal
to a fresh contest, before the arrival of MAMMA% re-