should reward public services by property under its peculiar protection, than that a democratic assembly should dole out largesses and favours according to the impulse and force of passion, party, or canvass. We have had instances enough, in our own memory, of what canvass can do. Setting on the one side the chances of favour, canvass, party, and inadvertency-on the other, the chances of extravagance-I do think the crown the better trustee. And I am sure that the hon. and learned gentleman is too well read in the principles and practices of popular assemblies, to be ignorant of the change that would take place to the prejudice of the people and of public men, if the task of giving pensions for political serVices were abandoned by the crown, and should fall into the management of this House.

After entering into some details on the origin of the 4 per cent fund, and stating that its amount and application should, for the future, be laid annually before parliament as a matter of course, Mr. Canning proceeded to the consideration of the Admiralty-droits, which he said, in the course of the late reign, had amounted to about 9,700,000l. Out of this there had been paid to captors, and for various law expenses, 5,372,0001. There remained, therefore, something more than 4,000,000l. to be accounted for. Out of that sum 2,600,000l. had been contributed for the public service: and two several sums had been givenone in aid of the civil-list, the other of the 4 per cent fund: the first of these contributions was 1,300,000l., the second

40,000l.: there remained, therefore, about 380,000l. to be accounted for. This sum had been paid partly in douations to dif ferent branches of the royal family, and partly in entertainments to foreign sovereigns. The expenditure, however, of the whole, had been communicated to parliament. It was true, that the account had not been laid before the House as a matter of course, but in consequence of motion and discussion. But it was part of the new arrangement, that an account of every grant out of this fund should, as a matter of course, and without address, be laid before the House in every session, immediately after such grant. So that the only question now was, whether the grant should be discussed in the House in the first instance, and be conferred in consequence of a parliamentary vote; or whether it should first proceed from the crown, and then be submitted to the cognizance of parliament. He did not say that this distinction was a trifling one, or one that did not deserve the most serious examination. All he meant to affirm was, that the ministers of the crown were not prepared to propose, that a long and almost immemorial usage should be abolished without the most striking proof that such usage, though co-existent with the practice, was incompatible with the spirit of the constitution.

Mr. Canning added, that, by vesting in the crown the absolute disposal of prizes taken before the formal declaration of hostilities, great facilities were given for ultimately avoiding war, even after disputes with our neighbours had assumed a very threat

ening aspect. But if the droits, instead of being committed to the crown through the proper courts of law, were submitted to parliamentary control, the difficulties of amicable adjudication would be increased tenfold. The desire to hold the balance equal -and, if wrong was done on one side or the other, to make amicable reparation-would be counteracted by national heat, high and romantic honour, and other feelings, which would naturally prevail in an assembly like the House of Commons. For the very purpose, therefore, of avoiding rash and unnecessary war, it is requisite to exclude such questions from the official knowledge of parliament, till every claim has been heard, and a final adjudication made. If any private wrong should have been committed, if any inadvertent measure should have been adopted, not only the difficulty, but the inconvenience, of retracing the first step, or of persevering in the course once hastily taken, would be increased by the change. If it were necessary to come down at once to parliament, and state that so many ships had been captured, and were at the control of parliament, the question would arise, was the capture just or unjust? If it should be judged unjust, the administration would be condemned; but, what has this to do in repairing the wrongs of a nation? If it were thought just, war must be entered into, although policy might dissuade strongly from war. No reason, then, can be found in the usage, in any constitutional defect, or in the application of the droits, for the change proposed. Every reason and every argu

ment, arising from the first nucleus of their formation to the expenditure of the last farthing, distinctly shows, that we should be wrong in changing the control of the droits in question. In the hands of the crown, then, they are best placed, to be exercised as every prerogative of the crown ought to be-for the benefit of the people, for whom the royal prerogatives exist.

The motion was supported by Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Marryat, Sir Robert Wilson, Sir Joseph Yorke, and Mr. Tierney. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Bragge Bathurst opposed it. After a very eloquent and powerfully sarcastic reply from Mr. Brougham, the question was put; when 145 voted for it, and 273 against it.

The same question came again into discussion upon the third reading of the Civil-list bill, in the House of Lords (May 30th). That bill, in conformity to the assurance which the ministers had given in the debate on Mr. Brougham's motion, contained a clause, which provided, that an account of the sums received for the droits of the admiralty or the crown, and the surplus of the 4 per cent duties, should be returned annually to parliament, together with their application. Lord Dacre proposed to amend this clause, by enacting, that no part of these droits should be applied to purposes already provided for in the grant for the civil-list. The amendment was supported by lord Ellenborough; but, being opposed by lord Liverpool, was rejected by a majority of 60.

The principal discussion on the arrangements of the civil-list, took

place on the 8th of May, when the chancellor of the exchequer moved the second reading of the resolutions relative to the civillist, by which 850,0001. out of the English revenue, and 207,000. out of the Irish, were to be granted to the king for life, to commence from the demise of his late majesty. The civil-list had been last settled in 1816; and the scheme now proposed was, in every respect, the same as that which was then adopted, except that in the latter a sum of 298,000l. was allowed for the Windsor establishment, the privy purse of his majesty, the allowance to the deceased queen, and the privy purse of the prince regent. Of these heads of expenditure, the annual sum of 60,000/. for the royal privy purse, was the only one which remained in the present estimates so that there was here a saving of 238,000l., subject to such provision as it might be thought expedient to make for the servants of his late majesty. Lord John Russell, to give time for inquiry, moved, that the consideration of the report should be deferred for a week. His arguments were, that there were many useless offices comprised in the civillist, which ought to be abolished, and that the establishment of 1816, when, in fact, two courts were to be maintained, and the value of money was much lower than it now was, ought not to be implicitly adopted in the present circumstances of the country. Mr. Tierney argued for inquiry at great length. He stated, that he had originally disapproved of the establishment of 1816, because the estimates had not been sifted by public inquiry; and, surely, that which was originally defective,

could not have been made perfect by the lapse of time. Even if that establishment had been sufficiently economical, still there was reason to suppose, that considerable retrenchments might now be made, because several causes of expenditure which existed then, no longer operated. He would beg the House to consider, that his late majesty was liable to very heavy demands, by reason of his large family. He would beg them to consider the charges of the Board of Works, and what had been the cost, not for repairs, but for the improvements of that stupendous pile, Windsor - castle; next, for the decoration, furnishing, &c., of apartments in the palaces for the princesses, and of the apartments in Kensingtonpalace for the princess of Wales. He would beg them to consider the heavy expenses of removing the princesses to and from Windsor, stated at 20,0007.; and further, the removals of the royal family to Weymouth; and, putting all these very heavy costs together, were they to be told, that the last seven years were the proper criterion, upon which the estimate for the expenses of the civillist at the present day were to be framed? There are (said Mr. Tierney, towards the conclusion of his speech) many rumours abroad, which may or may not be well founded; and if I listened to them, I should think it a very bad time, indeed, for any gentleman on this side of the House to do any thing that might possibly wound the feelings of his majesty. What may be the consequences of the part I have taken, I neither know nor care; but this I know, that if public confidence be of any value, no man ought to hope

for the confidence of the country, who does not endeavour to deserve it by fearlessly stating his sentiments in this House. When we are talking of economy and retrenchment, I cannot come down here to take away the salaries of some petty clerks, or to reduce the pensions of a few poor halfpay officers, and shut my eyes to this proceeding, by which such enormous sums are to be voted to his majesty without inquiry. I know I am doing my duty; and, if I am at all acquainted with the character of the king, I am sure, that he will rather thank me, than blame me, for the part that I am taking. What is it we wish on this side of the House? Nothing more, than that the crown should stand well with the country; and, in times like these, can there be any thing more important, than that the people should feel a firm assurance that his majesty requires no further sacrifice from them, than is absolutely necessary to support the character and dignity of the throne.

Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Canning spoke in defence of the propositions of the chancellor of the exchequer, reasoning principally on the indelicacy of instituting an inquiry into the civil-list at the commencement of a new reign

a proceeding of which our history furnished no example; and on the ungraciousness of supposing, that, because the crown of late had not exceeded the provision allotted to it, that provision was too abundant, and ought to be lowered. 157 voted for lord J. Russell's amendment; 250 against it.

As his present majesty had, for many years before he formally ascended the throne, maintained a royal establishment, he could

not imitate the example of preceding sovereigns, who had generally retained those, whom, at their accession, they found in the pay of the crown, unless he had discarded those who had previously served him faithfully. An application was, therefore, made to parliament (July 5th) on behalf of those who had attended the late king as menials, or had been dependant on his private bounty. For this purpose 24,000l. was granted.

The estimates for the navy, army, ordnance, and the other branches of the public service, having, in the course of the session, been laid before parliament, and discussed in the usual manner, and with the usual results, the chancellor of the exchequer, on the 19th of June, brought forward the budget of the year. He began with the army expenditure, which, in 1819, had been 8,782,000l., but for the present year was estimated at 9,422,0007.; the increase being occasioned by the augmentation of force, which the situation of the country had rendered necessary. The naval expenditure amounted 6,586,000l., exceeding the estimates of the preceding year by about 150,0007., in consequence of the additional two thousand marines, which had been voted to perform garrison duty on shore. The ordnance estimates were fixed at 1,2047. being nearly the same as in 1819, but in neither years could the actual expense be confined within the sum voted by parliament; and the difference had been, and would still be, defrayed by the sale of stores. The miscellaneous service amounted, in the last year, to 2,078,000/.; and in the present, including some

to

new items, they amounted to 2,100,000/. The total amount for the service of the year, including payment of the interest of the national debt, was 50,500,000%. The sum to be provided for, exclusive of that interest, was, last year, 20,488,0007., and in the present, 20,722,0001., being an increase of 234,000l. Preparations had been made, by funding and paying off exchequer-bills, to reduce the unfunded debt to the extent of about 9,000,000/. Acting under the recommendation of the finance committee, it was proposed to repay 5,000,000l. of exchequer-bills, in addition to what was provided for in the last session of parliament, and to make a further reduction of the remaining part of the unfunded debt, not in the possession of the Bank, but in the hands of private individuals, to the amount of 4,000,000l. making a total of 9,000,000l. The total sum to be provided for in this year was, therefore, 29,723,000l.

To meet these charges, the first article of ways and means, was the continuation of the usual annual taxes, amounting to 3,000,0007. The next would be a grant of 2,500,000l. from the produce of the temporary excise duties, which had been continued since the war. The next item consisted of the lottery and old naval stores, which, together, would produce 500,000.-the lottery, 240,0007.-old naval stores, 260,000l.; in addition to which, in order to complete the sum of nearly 30,000,000l., which was called for, a loan to the amount of 5,000,000/. had been contracted for, and received the sanction of the House; exchequerbills, to the extent of 7,000,0007,

had been funded, and it was farther proposed to borrow 12,000,000l. from the sinkingfund.

The question had often been put to Mr. Vansittart, why, as he wished to borrow seventeen millions, and the sinking-fund amounted to that sum, he did not borrow the whole from that fund, instead of taking from it only twelve millions, and contracting for the remaining five with individuals. Mr. Vansittart's reply was, that although the amount of debt remaining unredeemed at the close of the year, might have been nearly the same in one mode of proceeding as in the other, yet the effect upon public credit aud convenience would have been extremely different. The purchases of the commissioners, by their equable and regular operations, regulated the market, and prevented those fluctuations, which accidental circumstances, forced sales, and the combinations of speculators, might occasion. Whatever might be the necessity of an individual to bring his stock to sale, he knew that there was a constant and considerable purchaser in the market, from whom, with a short delay, he could not fail to obtain the current price.

The seven millions of exchequer-bills were funded on terms more than usually favourable to the public. For each 1007. of unfunded debt, 991. of five per cent stock was given, so that the capital of the debt was reduced by the operation, though the interest paid was under five per cent. The loan was contracted for at the rate of 1421. 4s. three per cent. stock for each 1007. of money, being nearly two per cent above