furnished, and that arrangement was at present to his mind quite satisfactory, for he could not rest upon mere technical objections. Then, as to the rumours to which his right hon. friend had alluded, and which were imagined to cast a cloud of suspicion upon the character of the queen, he totally disregarded such rumours. He would, indeed, refuse his ears to every thing like rumour, suspicion, or insinuation, so long as her majesty remained queen consort. He would listen to no tales about inquiry or commission, nor would he allow the rumoured result of any rumoured inquiry to have the slightest effect upon his judgment. But if any thing in the shape of a distinct charge against the queen should be brought before that House, he hoped he should be found to act as became an honest member of parliament, by pronouncing a fair decision, not only between the parties immediately concerned, but with regard to the public interest, which the consideration of such an important question must necessarily involve. He trusted he would be found, in such a case, ready to do equal justice to the queen, to the king, and to the public, with a due regard to all the national and constitutional points naturally belonging to such an investigation. But till some specific charge should be submitted to that House, his lips should be sealed upon the subject; but he must say, that, in justice to the high personage alluded to, he thought that no opinion should be expressed upon her conduct merely on the authority of rumour. If any charge should be preferred, he begged it to be recollected that this illustrious personage was not remarkable for any slowness to meet accusation, nor for any difficulty to prove her innocence. Remembering, then, her alacrity on the subject of former charges, it was but candid to give her credit for equal alacrity to meet any charges that might hereafter be advanced, and for equal facility, too, in confounding her accusers [Hear, hear!]. But the question which his right hon. friend had thought proper to discuss was of such an important character, that he hoped gentlemen would at all times feel the propriety of considering it with calmness and temper-that bound up as that question was with the feelings of all the royal family, he trusted no appeal upon the subject would ever be made to any turbulent passions out of doors [Hear, hear!]. Such an appeal, indeed, upon such a subject could not be too forcibly deprecated at any time, because its only effect would be the radical subversion of the principles of justice. But especially under existing circumstances an appeal of that nature must serve to raise a ferment in the country, and to have the names of illustrious personages dragged through the mire of every hustings throughout the empire [Hear, hear!]. If any discussion of this important question should ever arise in parliament, its character was ample guarantee for the examination of the subject with justice, moderation, and candour; and deeply interested, as he must be in the question, from professional considerations, as well as from his duties as a member of that House, he would enter into the discussion with a full confidence of an equitable result. Lord Castlereagh rose only for the purpose of thanking the hon. and learned gentleman for a speech which did equal honour to his head and his heart, and which must have carried conviction to all who heard it. His majesty's ministers had not lost sight of the inconvenience which might arise from a lapse of the provision which had been made for an illustrious personage, and it was their intention to submit a suitable measure to the consideration of the House. The House then resolved itself into a committee of supply; and the chancellor of the exchequer proposed a vote of 200,000l. towards satisfying such annui. ties and pensions as would have been paid out of the consolidated fund, in case the demise of his majesty had not taken place. Also for a sum not exceeding 50,000l. to provide for such expenses of a civil nature as did not form a part of the ordinary charges.-Agreed to. Lord INSOLVENT DEBTORS' BILL.] Althorp moved the second reading of the Insolvent Debtors bill. He said that one of the principal objections which had been made to this bill was the clause which gave the creditor a power to compel the surrender of the debtor's effects, and afterwards to imprison him. It had been contended, that it would be hard to compel the debtor to surrender his property, when he had rather remain in prison; but he could not help considering this as one of the great advantages of the bill. It was extremely desirable to give effect to the principle which gave the creditor a power over the property rather than the person of the debtor. In the present state | payment. The grant of the princess of of the law, a man might remain in prison Wales was one of those grants which were for any length of time, and set his credi- subject to the life of the king. Besides, tors at defiance. As to the making of there was not now any such person as the freehold property liable to the payment princess of Wales. If it was intended to of debts, an arrangement would be made grant, to her present majesty a similar on this point, which would, he hoped, provision to that made for the princess of prove satisfactory. The strongest objec- Wales, words to that effect ought to be tion had been made to the clause giving introduced. If the chancellor of the exthe creditor a power of imprisonment after chequer granted a single penny in any the debtor surrendered, which had been other manner, he would be guilty of an considered by many persons as a very se- offence to the House of Commons. vere and unnecessary power. As the law stood at present, the debtor must remain three months in confinement previous to being brought up for judgment, and this was agreeable to the principle of imprisonment, which was to be regarded not as a punishment but as a security for the creditor. When, however, the cessio bonorum was adopted as the principle of legislation between debtor and creditor, the imprisonment was to be taken more as a punishment than before, and if not resorted to, those persons would escape with the greatest impunity who had contracted debts with the least ability to discharge them. The bill was ordered to be read a second time this day fortnight. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, February 22. THE QUEEN.] On the resolution being put, "That there be granted 200,000l. towards satisfying such pensions, payments, and allowances as would have become payable out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or out of the civil list, in case the demise of the Crown had not occurred before the 5th of April," Mr. Tierney said, he wished to know from what fund, the money necessary for the support of the queen was to be paid? During the late reign, provision was made for the princess of Wales, but now that royal personage was queen of England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the money to be paid out of this grant would, were it not for the demise of the Crown, have been paid in the usual way to the princess of Wales. All that was intended was, to pay the sums now due in the same manner as if that melancholy event had not taken place. Mr. Tierney denied the power of the right hon. gentleman to make any such The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the right hon. gentleman knew that this or any other payment, officially made, could not alter the state of the party receiving it. Mr. Tierney observed, that the only provision he knew of was made for the princess of Wales-but there was now no such personage in existence. How, then, could they vote a grant of this kind? He knew the right hon. gentleman dared not mention the name of the queen. But could they, he would ask, give to an individual not mentioned in the grant a sum of money voted to another person? He should like to hear the chancellor of the exchequer mention the name of the queen, as he wished to have it recorded on the Journals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the sum formerly granted to the princess of Wales was now payable to the queen, and to no other person. Mr. Tierney repeated, that there being no such personage as the princess of Wales, any grant to the queen should be so stated to parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the individual to whom the grant had been made still remained, though her political character was changed. Her majesty had a right to receive in her present situation what had been granted to her in another. Mr. Hume asked, why such difficulty was made about mentioning at once that the grant was for the queen? By merely stating this the objection of the right hon. gentleman would at once be met. It Mr. Lushington said, that the grant moved for was stated to be for paying of annuities, &c. payable out of the civil list, and which would have been duly paid but for the demise of the Crown. would be improper to mention the name of her majesty as one of the persons receiving an annuity, unless all the other names were also mentioned, which it would at once be seen would be extremely inconvenient. The resolution was agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, February 24. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMONS RESPECTING A SUPPLY, &c.] The Earl of Lauderdale rose, in pursuance of notice, observing that the case he had to state was so plain and clear that there was no necessity for taking up much of their lordships' time. It had been the uniform practice of parliament, for a great number of years, that all the votes of supply passed by the House of Commons, during the session, should be included in an appropriation bill, which came up to that House for its assent in the usual way, and it was the undoubted right of their lordships thus to exercise a legislative power with regard to the supplies voted by the other House. In the present instance that practice had, without any necessity, been departed from, and he thought it was incumbent upon their lordships to assert their undoubted rights, and to pass some resolution disapproving of such a proceeding a proceeding which was certainly contrary to the constitution, and which was so decided in 1784, when the House of Commons passed a resolution, declaring it a high crime and misdemeanor for any officer of the Crown to apply money in any branch of the public service without the authority of an act of parliament. But in this case there were not only the votes of sums of money for the public service, but the House of Commons had actually voted a sum of money to pay an nuities under the civil list act, which expired on the demise of his majesty; and they had thus assumed a power, of their own authority, to suspend the operation of the law which declared that these annuities should not be paid. This particularly applied to the case of the annual sum granted to the princess of Wales. Were ministers aware to what extent these votes went? Was it not the effect of them to continue to the king the income granted to his majesty as prince of Wales, as well as the amount of the civil list, whilst a portion of the hereditary revenues also fell to the Crown? Respecting the latter there was no account, and ministers themselves did not seem to be aware of the extent to which the votes went. It was in vain for the noble earl opposite to recur to the precedents of 1784 and 1807: in these cases parliament was dissolved by the act of the Crown without any previous communication of its intentions, but in the present case there was a previous communication of the intention of the Crown to dissolve the parliament, which rendered the present case perfectly unprecedented. If the House of Commons could then, in one instance, assume the power of voting the public money without the concurrence of their lordships, what was to prevent them from setting aside the privileges of their lordships' House? It surely was incumbent upon the noble lords opposite to take care that no such precedent was established, for if the universal suffrage and annual parliament men could unhappily gain the ascendancy, there could be no doubt that the first step of a House of Commons so constituted would be to set aside the legislative privileges of that House, and here would be a precedent established to assist them. He concluded by moving the following resolutions :— "Resolved-That it appears from the votes of the House of Commons now on the table of this House, that the Com mons' House of Parliament have voted the following resolutions:-1. That a sum, not exceeding 2,000,000l., be granted to his majesty to pay off and discharge Irish treasury bills, charged upon the aids or supplies of 1820, outstanding and unprovided for. 2. That a sum, not exceeding 50,000l., be granted to his majesty, upon account, to enable his majesty to provide for such expenses of a civil nature, as do not form a part of the ordinary charges of the civil list for the year 1820. 3. That there be granted to his majesty the sum of 200,000l., towards satisfying such annuities, pensions, or other payments, as would have been payable out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or out of the civil list, in case the demise of his late majesty had not taken place, before the 5th day of April, 1820. 4. That a sum, upon account, not exceeding 200,000/. nett, be granted to his majesty towards defraying the charge of army services in Ireland for the year 1820. 5. That a sum, upon account, not exceeding 600,000l., be granted to his majesty towards defraying the charge of army services at home and abroad, except in Ireland, for the in Ireland, for the year 1820." "Resolved-That the Commons' he had just stated and that of a dissolu. House of Parliament, informed by his tion happening in the middle of the usual majesty's message of the intended disso- period of a session, when, after the meetlution of parliament, have, in these reso-ing of the new parliament, an approprialutions, attempted to appropriate money to be paid for services subsequent to the dissolution, which can only legally be effected by an act of parliament appropriating the supplies voted; and that they have farther, in a most unprecedented manner, assumed the power of providing for, and authorising the payment of certain pensions and annuities, subsequent to the dissolution of parliament, which by law are declared to be at an end. "Resolved-That, under these circumstances, we feel it our duty to declare, that though we regard these proceedings as derogatory to the privileges of this House and of parliament, yet we are induced, by a sense of the state in which public business is now placed, to forbear from any immediate proceedings, and to declare, that we will concur in indemnifying those who may pay money, or otherwise act under these resolutions, which we must nevertheless deprecate, as threatening the subversion of the best and wisest principles of the constitution of our country." tion bill, including all the sums voted, might still be passed. As to the resolution passed in 1784, it proved the direct contrary of what was urged by the noble earl; as it showed that the practice of the House of Commons had been what he had just stated; and it was well known that the object of passing that resolution was to prevent a dissolution which was suspected to be intended by the Crown. But the passing such a resolution proved that the practice had been different to what that resolation referred to. With regard to the Civil List act, it was not correctly stated, that it had expired, as, though the sums named in it ceased to be payable, the regulations in the act were of the nature of permanent regulations, and all that had been done was to vote a sum for current expences for the quarter intervening between the dissolution of the present parliament and the calling of a new one. He did not see the necessity of coming to any resolution upon the subject; but at all events he could not agree to the resolutions of the noble lord, which conveyed a The Earl of Liverpool observed, that it strong censure upon the House of Comhad been the invariable practice of parlia-mons, their lordships having in their adment since the revolution, for no grant to be made, nor any sum to be levied upon the people, without the authority of an act of parliament; and this was so strictly adhered to, that in the case of a loan, though the bargain was made between the first lord of the treasury and the chancellor of the exchequer and the contractors, and the first instalment actually paid, still it was paid into the Bank, and not touched by any one till authorized to be drawn out for the public service by an act of parliament. But with respect to votes of supply, the practice had been different; it had been the constant practice for the House of Commons to vote various sums for different branches of the public service, under the authority of which votes alone the money had been applied. It was true that all these votes were included in the Appropriation bill; but the fact was, that frequently, particularly if the session was long, half the money wanted for the different branches of the public service had been expended before that bill was brought up to that House. He could not see any difference of principle, therefore, between the case (VOL. XLI.) dress to the throne pledged themselves to concur in any measure for expediting the public business. He was, however, ready to meet the views of the noble lord in some respects by a resolution recognizing the rights of that House, and he therefore moved as an amendment, to leave out the resolutions after the statement of the resolutions of the House of Commons, and to insert," that this House, from the state of the public business, acquiesce in these resolutions, although no act may be passed to give them effect." The Marquis of Lansdowne said, the question was one of the greatest importance, as affecting the constitutional rights of that House; and when it was asserted that their lordships had in their address to the throne agreed to expedite the public business as much as possible, he must tell the noble earl that they had not agreed to abandon their constitutional rights. The cases where the House of Commons acted in the usual manner in their votes, without being informed of there being any intention on the part of the Crown to dissolve them, were totally different from the present instance, where (5 M) the information of the intention of the Crown to dissolve the parliament had been given, and where consequently, every arrangement might have been made to ensure a regular course of proceeding. That it had been uniformly the case since the Revolution, for the grants of public money made by the other House to pass under the review of their lordships in order to their being incorporated in an act of the legislature, could not be denied; and the noble earl most erroneously described the Resolution of the House of Commons, in 1784, when he said that it proved the practice of the House to be different. The fact was, that the resolution was merely declaratory of the law of the land. It had been most truly observed by his noble friend, that for the House of Commons to assume the power of voting the public money without the concurrence of their lordships, was a most injudicious precedent to set, for there could be no doubt, that if those persons who aimed at our institutions and establishments could unhappily obtain the ascendancy, the first step of a House of Commons constituted by them, would be to take away the legislative privileges of their lordships. His noble friend had also observed upon the anomalous proceeding to which recourse had been had with regard to the civil list, it appearing that his majesty would not only, pending the dissolution, have his revenue as king of England, but also that which was granted to him as prince of Wales, and a portion of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. The Earl of Liverpool said, the vote on account of the civil list was for a specific sum, 200,000l., and that it did not in the least interfere with the settlement of the civil list by the new parliament. As to the payment of the annuities under the eivil list act, it was nothing more than would have been done as a matter of course for the current quarter, had parliament continued sitting. The Earl of Donoughmore acquiesced in the amendment, by which he thought quite enough was done to protect the privileges of the House. The amendment was then carried. BARNSTAPLE.] The Earl of Lauderdale presented a petition from the mayor and aldermen of Barnstaple against the Writs Suspension bill, and praying that they might be heard by counsel against it on the second reading. The petition was laid on the table, and lord Lauderdale moved that the petitioners be heard by counsel on the second reading. The carl of Caernarvon wished their lordships to proceed as speedily as possible to the discussion of the principle of the bill; but the time that counsel must occupy would prevent that object, if they were called in on the second reading. He therefore proposed that they should be heard in the committee, or on some subsequent stage of the bill. A conversation followed, in which lord Lauderdale and the lord chancellor supported the motion, and lords Grosvenor, Caernarvon, Lansdowne, and Dacre, opposed it. A division took place, when the numbers were Contents, 12; Non-contents, 11. It was accordingly ordered that counsel should be heard to-morrow. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, February 25. MUTINY BILL, &c.] On the third reading of the Mutiny bill. Earl Grosvenor objected to the amount of the force with which the country was burdened, but he did not mean to oppose the bill in the present state of the public business. He could not, however, look with any satisfaction at the termination of the present parliament, when he reflected upon the various measures that might have been taken into consideration with advantage to the public, but which would be interrupted by the dissolution; and when he considered also that there was in reality nothing, so far as he could understand, that need have prevented the session from being carried on to its usual termination. Amongst the important questions which ought to have been taken into consideration and determined upon, was the civil list; instead of which, the dignity of the Crown was actually left without any provision for its support. Connected with this subject there was also another important question relative to the situation of the queen ;. which whenever it did come under consideration he should discuss with the utmost freedom. He put it to the noble lords opposite, whether they ought not, before dissolving the present parliament, to have considered whether they could not have brought forward some measure for the amelioration of the condition of the people? It could not be denied that much |