Star.
London, England, 1828-06-24 00:00:00

~~-

-

expense, therefore. ought not to be brought
as a ground of , accusation against his
Honourable Friend (Mr. Herries.) It might
it undoubtedly was, fit that an inquiry should
tuted with respect to this money; but he
that as a similar inquiry was going on in a
.tee of ti.e House, the investigation of the matter
be left to that Committee, and ought not to
subject of debate. The question, he conceived,
ight forward most irregularly. His Hon. Friend
introduced the motion had, with his usual
talent for detail, ransacted every source of information
be could find, and brought everything both from the
records of the House and elsewhere that could in
any way assist' his views, or be analogous to the
case which he supposed he had made out. With
respect to the case if Mr. Seyniour. it was not at
all in point. Parliament, in that instance, had
granted a certain sum rf money for the use of the
navy, and it was ultimately applied to another de-
partment of the State. Then came the case in 1611,
which was equally foreign to the present inquiry.-
-But even if it were otherwise, these sums were all
voted by Parliament, while the fund, which was
stow the subje.t of debate, was not created by Par-
liament, nor had it ever been in his ,Majesty's Es-
chequer. It arose, he contended, out of one of those
casual funds of the same nature as droits which were
Created from time to time, and over which the House
bedew direct controul. If it had not been for the Act
if the late King assuming that all the claims upon this
ground were satisfied, the surplus would be precisely'
of the same character 6s droits ;Auld had the Clown
applied the fund in question as droits, Ministers would
iqt now be accountable for it. He repeated, ths if the
Act of the 59th of the late King bad not passed at all,
every objection, both legal and constitutional, and also
every clads upon the fund, would have been satisfied.
All that *odd be necessary would be, for the Minis.
tees of the Crown to lay upon the table of the House
an account of the manner in which the fund bad been
applied. He contended that there had been no misap•
ropriation of money in the present instance, and he
would willingly try the question on its merits, and let it
be judged either by politicians or lawyers, or by that
Which would be found as good a criterion as either, he
would let the question be tried by the common sense
of the public, whether this sum was not in the
light of droits? He contended that the Act of the 59th
el the late King gave no direction for laying a state.
alma before Parliament of the manner in which funds
which were raised and applied in the manner of this
fund, had been appropriated. The Act merely said,
4i that in case all such claims were paid er liquidated,
then the surplus of such sum or sums should be paid
by the said Committee to the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests? He cuuld not but express a wish that
the Act had added,. sg That there shall be laid before
Parliament an account of the appropriation of such sum
sir sums of money."—(Hear' hear, from the Opposi-
_
.4con.) As the case stood, however, he had this to
my, that no departure bad been made from the strict
letter of the law--(Cheers, from the Ministerial
benches.) WM respect to another objection, that the
to hire of this mosey bad not been applied to the
&pose for which it was originally intended, had
the omission in the Act of Parliament not occurred,
ipo objection of this nature could have been taken. At
**beginning of what was termed theseven years' war,
orders were given to the King's ships that all French
esaiels.shotsid be seized and brought into British ports
as prisoners of war. Accordingly. the order being fele
Stied* all those vessels were sold, and the profics.applied
to the Crown. Now what was done with this money?
-Why, it was lent every year to one or other of the sera'
/Aces conoected with the State, and it was again repel*
by them. At-the end of the was what became of chid
illostei? It happened that France, owing to her peculiar',
situation with reference to this country, called upon us
to repay it, lied we did sq. This, he conceived, was
a case perfectly anatozoos, yt t, tf he was to rely
aa the statements made to-night, Honour able Gen.
detnen would make the House believe that the
fund which was the subject rf the presort debate
ivita still liable to any claims that might be made
aro h. He coextended that it could not now be applied
trio bey public purpose. The whole sum and substance
et the matter resolved itself into this—that the money
kg question was a loan, and as such it was impossible
that it could be accounted for as if it were a grant of
Parliament.it appeared, that in 1825 the House granted
the application of an unlimited sum of money for the
repairs, Erections. and improvements at Buckingham
Souse. Those repairs and improvements, it appeared,
went on more rapidly than it was at first expected, and
More being a fund dormant, which was perfectly
within the power of the Crown to appropriate, his Ma.
je-ay's Ministers, seeing that the Parliamentary grant
was insufficient, thought it fit and expedient to apply
to this dormant fund by way of a loan, for the purpose
of carrying on the buiding. This was the simple state-
ment of the case, and he begged the House to bear in
mind that this fund was not originally voted by Par-
lionsent, tut was solely ender the controul and at the
disposal of the Crown, and until its final disposal the
Crown might lend it. But thug were other cases as much
in point, and of more modern date than that which had
occurred at c, mmencement of the seven years war •
Every Gentleman was aware of the erection of the new
mews at Pimlico for his Majesty's stabling. Now, the
fund by means of which that building was erected
arose from a loan from the droits. He could .t te
*thee instances equally applicable, but that he consider-
ed it unnecessary to do so. Taking this view of the
question, he was led to believe that his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. Herries) had, through inadvertence, put a
;negative upon the first resolution proposed by the Hon.
teneeman opposite. He (Mr. Huskisson) would not
directly oppose that first motion, but uron the second
motion be was prepared with his Right Hon. Friend to
wotein the wegative; and with respect to the first vote,
he should vote for the previous questiOn. With respect
to the lending of the money, he could only say, that
when the distreised weavers ref Spitalfields applied for
as advance of 50,0001. 15,0001. were actually lent to
them. He remembered very well. that although he
f'ek for their distressed titnation, he thought that this
torts was an improper appropriation of the public
money. The difference was this—that in sue vase the
Moose recognised the necessity of the weavers, and in
the other the Ministers complied with the necessities of
she Monarch. Upon these grounds, and for the reasons
fie had stated, he should feel so difficulty in giving his
Vr te upon the present motion. He did not think that
400,0416/. was too exorbitant a sum for the erection of a
Palace suited to the Miwareh of this country.
The SPEAKER, put the 5 • Resolution.
Sir. HERR' ES said, that it was not his Inteoltion, to oppose It.
Mr. STANLEY said, that not withstanding the ingenious *pr.'
psi *dim of his -Right Bon. Friend (Mr. Huskisson), hi. did
set feet be ilhoisid do his duty if be did not fully express kis feelings
ppm what be was/ tad to be a meet shuffling, disingenuous, and
modechswil trameadina. Lie complained of the introduction et
tograpensa wastac„ arid of the *slam of appopls tote „frorgua.
wit the Hemp, soft° the asahitenswo Vf the doeiptendow at tho
Down, Molt soargeother Ins mod eareitirtiook SiOlowa

Tho revenue of the Words and &dusts was returned at 70,0001.,
snit she whole amount appeared on dm oeceuert d Biteklegham
HMSO was, up to the present time, soil 21,0001. And be should
like to knOw if the Woods and Pored* bad been so much pushed
for money to carry on the rapid improvements in Buckingham
House, how was it•that that department could advance 55,0001.
for the building of York Ilottrel He wield not charge the tran-
saction as illegal, but he would characterise it ea unconnitutionaL'
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he wished to set aside all
special pleading and nicety of phrase in looking at the
question, and to inquire, arm broad end clear princi•
pies, whether there had been in any Minister such a
dereliction from duty as to cull upon that House to re-
cord its censure of his conduct? And considering the
subject in that view, b,. could not concur in the nriliOn
of the Hun. Gentleman who had brought it forward.
He felt pelectly satisfied that Lord Liverpool, Mr:
Canning, and Lord Guderich never dreamt that they
were acting illegally, or unconstitutionally, or in the
slightest manner improperly—or that the time might
arrive when, not being able themselves to eive any ex-
planation of their motives, their condoct would he
brought before Parliament as rolling for its marked
censuie—(Cheerst, Putting the plain and palpable
construction upon the Act of Parliament, he was pie-
pared to contend that it censure was to light any where,
it was not upon the Minister, but upon the House
itself,—(Hear). The question was, whether the Tree.'
sury had the power to make the loan, and if it had that
power, had it. exercised it so improperly as to call for
the marked displeasure of that House? He wished every
Honourable Member who entertained any doubt would,
before giving a vote, read the debates of 1816. In
consequence of the war we became possessed of. three
funds. One of 700,0001. which was acquired without
Treaty; the second, a very large one, which was .ac
spited by Treaty as an indemnification for our,expenoes;.
and the third. which was acquired by Treaty, and
to be devoted to the payment of claims which indivi-
duals possessed against France. The first fund was ap-
plied to the payment ot She army in France,. without
any sanction from Parliament. The question wardis-
euved, and the right of the Crown was not denied by
any from.' Resolution of that House. Of the second
fund, the Crown, with the tacit acquiescence of that
House, appropriated 1,000,000/. as a reward t t the
army. The appropriation of part of the thirdfand was
the subject of the present debate. Then, with those tacts
before him, how could he vote for the Resolution of the
Honourable Member? The whole subject had before
been brought before the House by the Right Honour-
able Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney)).—
That Right Honourable Gentleman had proposed a
series of Resolutions, upon which the• previous tines-
' don was moved and carried without a division. That
fact Lord Liverpool and Mr. Canning had before
them, and was it lair for the House of Commons now
to turn round and brand them ? To show the true con-
struction of the act, he referred to the speech of the
Right Hon. Mt.rnber for Knot esborough, and quoted an
Act of Parliament alluding to a fund ot 400.0001.
arising as a revenue from the territorial possessionsin the
East Indies. That Act expressly said, the sum shall
be paid into the Exchequer, there to be kept till dealt
with by Parliament. Certainly if the transaction were
to be dune over again, he should recommend that it
should not be proceeded in without the knowledge and
sanction of Parliament; but while he admitted that be
never could consent to censure area whose motives
could not be fairly questioned. He should have no
object on to adapt an annual instead of a triennial re-
vrt trout the Woods and Forests, or to any other mea-
sure which might be showa to be necessary for the due
regulation and. administration of the public money.
Even if he had made an unguarded and free admission
io the Finance Committee, which be could not have
imagined would be takers advantage of, and an coming
into chat House was challenged wit's that admission,,
he should at once say he should oppose the Resolu-
tion, and up n the ground that if there hod been an °set--
Sight or inadvertence, it did not call for the severe measure pro-
posed. Allusioihs bad been made to the death of Mr. Canting,
and to the affliction of Lord Liverpool, but however deeply he
might feel upon those subjects, be would MA allude tag them as a
shield to protect public owe from public censure. He opposed the
Resolution on the simple ground of Its nijustice. But he must say
that if unhappily a sense of public duty had compelled him to con-
cur in the Resolution, his pain to doing so would have been re-
doubled by the reflection that the Legislature hid that Session
borne a full and unequivocal testimony of the merits and services
of Mr. Canning. And be thought that if Lord Liverpool should
be restored even for a Moment to bis powers, he would karts that
the only notice Parliament had.taken of his public conduct, was to
brand it for a transaction which the most violent bad nut stigma-
tised as worse than inadvertent—(Hear, hear).
Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the Resolution, and con-
tended that the high character of Lord Liverpool was the strongest
reason possible why the House should stamp the transaction with
its censure. It would else become a precedent.
Mr. BROUGHAM contended at some length, that Ministers
by the act in question, were bound to come to Parliament with an
account of the manner in which the money had beets appropriated.
That was the Constituoonal mode. 'f he application unauthorized
of so large a sum as 250,0001. without the concurrence of 12.'8.14-
' ment, tended greatly to a lavish expenditure of the public money.
In the present case it would be believed by the public, that but for
the accidental discovery of the Finance Committee, the expenditure
of the money now the subject of discussion, would never have been
brought forward.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR replied: The question was, had the
Treasury power to dispose of 250,0cia1. without the nowledge
or consent of Parliament? Was it justified in withholding from
the House of Commons this new application of the public money?:
The circumstance had been wilfully concealed, and. but for the I
Finance Committee, he was satisfied would never have been dis '
covered. He defied any man to say this was nut a gnash violation
and infringement of the privileges of the House. If the House
passed over this, it was vain to attempt to attach responsibility
to any act of Ministers. He hoped that the Hointiewou.datto allow.
its privileges to be thus violated. He felt satisfied he sees right in
the Resolutions which he hat brought Onward: the first ot 'which
merely asserted a matter of fact, and the other that the' iireutn-
stance complained of was a gross •itilatiou albs Wyk, *OJ pd.
'lieges of the House.
The House then divided, when the numbers appeared—
For the previous question . • . , iii
Against it . .... ' 102

Majority agaiost the Resolution . . 79
The other Ordrrs of the Day were then disposed of, sod the
Rouse adjourned at Toluca o'CLoca.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S.
The betting yesterday ivid the effect of sending Velocipede back
half a point, while Belay Bedlam advanced in the gam/proportion.
With the exciptioo of a detided improvement In Ultimatum, DO
other change resulted from thit day's betting. His blajesty (through
Mr. Deigns Radcliffe) has made offers fur the purchase of liessy
Bedlam, but her spirited owed, Colonel King, has, from a public
and at the same time very honourable triding. declined to past with
her until after she has fulfilled bee engaseptents this season at Don.
cuter and Lincoln. The following are the latest odds--

NIIVINAIUM JULY *AMIS.
4to I apt Twatty I 6to 1 apt Zeal set
6 to 1 agst•Dulcines
_ _

SOMMSEIIIIIIII STA XIS (BATY).
4to I on the field. HAlstor. and Trumpeter ars the faveurites.
the former Wog the choice.

Sr. Loots.
4to 1 apt Vetloaiptdo (taken) as to t agst Romanist
4i to 1 apt Bossy Bedlam 42 to I apt alurplai
6 to 1 apt The ColOod 14 to t apt Terror
25 to 1 apt Ultimatum (taken) 30 to 1 apt Akaotou
SS to 1 apt Machatit (taboo)
• You Almon Mortum.
too was mkt* about Imsbutobtotoo tbs 1011olommiga
Ili till ihimi day.

- ,
oat of
forward
Right H
be..and
; be institu
thought t
Curnmitti
should be
form a su
was broq
who had