HC Deb 15 November 1830 vol 1 cc525-49
The Chancellor of the Exchequer

moved, "that the Order of the Day be read, that the House do go into a Committee upon the Civil List;" whereupon

Sir H. Parnell

said, he rose, according to the notice which he had given on Friday evening last, to move for an inquiry into the details of the expenditure comprehended in those papers which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had explained to the House as the Civil List. When the Ministers of the Crown came down to that House with a claim for a large sum of money for the public service, he could not be persuaded that such a claim ought not to be thoroughly examined in its details. He was in the House on Friday last; he paid the utmost attention in his power to the statements of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer; since that time he had had many opportunities of discussing the subject with other Gentlemen more competent to form a judgment upon such a subject; he had read the papers laid before the House; but by no application had he been able to comprehend the propositions to which he and the House were called on by the right hon. Gentleman to assent. The right hon. Gentleman had announced a saving of 85,000l. in one account. But how that saving was effected he (Sir H. Parnell) had yet been unable to discover. In another place he stated that an additional saving of 150,000l. was to be effected. But it appeared to him that never was statement more unfounded. He had the utmost difficulty to discover where that saving, or the other saving of 85,000l. was to be looked for. He could not conceive why the right hon. Gentleman made the accounts so complicated, by departing from the old practice of separating the Civil Lists for Ireland and for Scotland from that for England, and dividing them into classes. By the arrangement adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no means were left for ascertaining in what part of the public expenditure the boasted savings were effected. He (Sir Henry Parnell) had looked carefully over the papers, and he could discover no greater saving than that of 27,000l.; but the right hon. Gentleman had so managed the accounts as to give an appearance of saving where in reality there was none. He did not mean to make any charge against the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought it a matter into which the House ought seriously to make inquiries, whether the saving of 85,000l. were real or not. With regard to the saving which they had been-told was to be effected, in addition to that 85,000l., by the giving up of the allowance which his present Majesty had received as Duke of Clarence, surely the Ministers did not mean to claim credit to themselves for any saving which might accrue to the nation from such a source; or, if they did, certainly it ought not to be in the Civil List they claimed credit for it, as that allowance was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. But, in the papers brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the House and the nation were given to understand that the saving was deducted from the Civil List. Finding that error in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had every reason to suspect that a more rigid examination than he had been able to make would detect other errors in them. The saving of 15,000l. from certain contingencies had nothing to do with the Civil List, which the House had then to consider. Such a deduction, therefore, ought not to have been introduced for the purpose of swelling the balance in favour of the Civil List now proposed, in comparison with former lists. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes credit also, at present, for contingent reductions in the Irish Pension List, which he merely anticipates, leaving it to chance to bring in the savings to the Treasury. With respect to the saving, therefore, represented as amounting to 85,000l., it seemed very doubtful whether a great part of that had any more reality than the savings in the Irish Pensions. Nor could that which was said to be an additional saving of 35,000l., caused by the falling in of the allowance of the Duke of Clarence, be considered a saving in the Civil List. Taking all these things together, it could not be doubted that there existed an urgent necessity for the House to make a rigid inquiry. It was, to say the least of it, a very strong measure on the part of the Ministers, to call upon that House to give them 970,000l. without inquiry as to the purposes to which it was to be applied, but yielding that sum to their control in simple confidence. The House ought not to neglect what was its own proper duty, and take the word of any Minister for the application of the public money. He wished to state, that in the motion which he should have the honour to propose, he had no intention, the most remote, to interfere in any way with the expenses necessary for the comfort, dignity, or splendor of the Sovereign. Gentlemen were well aware, that the line of distinction could easily and fairly be drawn. For, out of ten classes of expenditure into which the Civil List then presented was divisible, there were but three which could be said to have any relation to the comfort, dignity, or splendor of the Crown. Those three amount to about 450,000l., and even in that sum expenses are provided for, which do not affect the King's personal comfort or the royal dignity. The other and larger part of the whole amount of the Civil List—so great a sum as 480,000l., comprising expenses of an entirely national and public character—the other and larger part of the whole sum was, in every respect, of as public a nature as any sums that were applied for and granted in that House. It was required for services quite distinct from the personal wants of the Crown. Why did the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer seek to obtain those sums without inquiry or explanation, which he would be compelled to give if they were brought forward like other charges for the public service? He would ask Gentlemen who came to that House, with promises of economy fresh upon their lips, whether they would grant the vast sums applied for without the inquiry for which he called? It could not be doubted that inquiry would at least be satisfactory to their constituents, and there was reason to suppose that it might also be beneficial. It was too much that they should, immediately upon their meeting, vote away 1,000,000l. of the public money—short, perhaps, of some 30,000l.—without being able to say to what purposes that great sum was to be applied. With respect to the expenses of the Royal Household, he had every wish to grant an adequate allowance. But with respect to that class in the Civil List which comprised the pensions, he thought it extremely important that it should be submitted to strict investigation. Was it not necessary to inquire why the English Pension List was kept up to 74,000l., the Irish to 54,000l., and the Scotch to 32,000l.? Was the House now going to vote permanently the sum of 160,000l., for such purposes, at such a period, and without inquiry? He would beg leave to remind the House of the opinion of the whole country regarding pensions. According to the papers furnished to the Finance Committee, the sum paid for English pensions of every kind was 717,000l.; adding the Irish and Scotch pensions of every kind, the sum was increased to 772,000l. There was also a very heavy charge for superannuation; the sum being, for the Civil service of the State alone, 480,000l.; to this must be added the pensions paid under the denomination of half-pay, amounting to 4,900,000l. Besides, there were pensions of another kind fixed by law, so that the pensions altogether amounted to upwards of 6,000,000l. sterling, one shilling of which could not be touched without a compromise of the national faith. But with the full knowledge of all those burthens, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having the power to diminish them, proposed that they should agree to continue pensions to the amount of 160,000l. per year. To him that circumstance seemed to require investigation, and therefore he proposed a Committee. A Committee, be was sure, would be able to reduce those pensions very considerably without lessening the King's dignity, or staining his honour. With regard to the expenses of Ministers at foreign courts— although the charge in the Civil List now brought forward was less by 27,000l. than in that of 1820, the country was still called on to pay, under that head, 186,000l. But he could not help thinking that there was room in that item for very considerable reduction. At all events the sum claimed for that part of the list was too great to be voted by that House without inquiry. He objected, for example, to giving the Ambassador at the Netherlands 8,000l. a year besides an allowance for a house and various other charges. He objected also to the large salaries given to ambassadors and plenipotentiaries at seve- ral other courts and the whole of the diplomatic expenditure required revision and reduction. He wanted also to have an inquiry into the Irish and Scotch Pension Lists for although there had been Committees of Inquiry into the English Pension List, there had never been an inquiry respecting the Irish and Scotch Pensions. Money was voted, and it was never known to whom it went. The case required to be looked into. Indeed, as for Scotland, every particular connected with the Civil List, and also the hereditary revenues of the Crown in that part of the kingdom, called for investigation. In 1820, the sum of 109,000l. a year was given in lieu of the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland. But out of the whole produce, amounting to 184,000l., no more than 27,000l. found its way into the Exchequer. He would ask, was not that one fact sufficient to establish the necessity of an inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to justify the mode in which he had prepared the Civil List by referring to that adopted in 1820; and to his (Sir H. Parnell's) great surprise, and no doubt to the great surprise of many other Members, the right honourable Chancellor affirmed that the Civil List of 1820 had met the entire approbation of the House. He (Sir H. Parnell) had taken part in the debate upon that occasion; and he had never known a question more disputed than was that of the Civil List of 1820. There was on that occasion a most determined opposition to the proposals of the ministry: 157 Members voted in the minority. The Civil List of 1820 exceeded that of 1760 by the extravagant sum of 415,000l. Yet a saving- of 87,000Z. from that extravagant settlement was now called a measure of great economy. The comparison showed that the Ministers had not, on the present occasion, gone down low enough by 100,000l.; especially when it was considered that prices now are very much below the prices of that year. If the arrangements of that year had not been most extravagant, the last reign would never have been gone through without a debt having been created. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) took so much credit to Ministers on the score of reduction, because they kept below the Civil List of 1820 by so small a sum, the House could see what their notions of economy were. With respect to the sepa- ration of those expenses which relate to the comfort and dignity of the Crown from those which are entirely national, he considered that the reasoning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was strikingly incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what advantage would be obtained by the separation? It was his (the Chancellor's) duty to show, for the satisfaction of the House, what advantages they were to expect from keeping those accounts together. He ought to satisfy the House that the proposal to which he called on them to assent was justified by common sense. His own practice, in separating other expenses, no more national than some of those still mixed up in the Civil List, proved that even he himself considered such a separation useful. As for the explanation that such had been the practice, he (Sir H. Parnell) reprobated the customs defending bad measures by precedents. What had the nation gained by that practice, of doing all things according to former precedents? The result was, that the nation was burthened with an enormous debt, and oppressed with exorbitant taxation. Reference had been made to the provision for the personal expenditure of the Crown. On that subject he (Sir H. Parnell) believed that nothing could be of greater importance than that there should be no room for misunderstanding throughout the country respecting the sum set apart for the use of the Sovereign. Would any hon. Gentleman say, that there could be any advantage in leaving the matter in doubt, and consequently open to misrepresentation? There were many items now included in the Civil List which ought to be annually brought before that House, as other expenses were brought before them, but that was not the case with the King's personal expenditure. He considered the expenses of the Ministers at foreign courts to be one important item of that kind. Without the separation of those national charges from the personal expenses of the Crown, nothing like a proper system of public accounts could be attained. All sums paid in a particular branch of the public expenditure ought to be paid from a particular fund, and kept in a separate account. If different sums were to be paid for one purpose out of different funds, how could accounts be kept with any regularity? The right hon. Baronet then contrasted the mode of keeping the public accounts in France with that of keeping them in England, and contended that the former was much superior. There the annual revenue was 40,000,000l. and yet, by the system employed, there could be neither mistake nor delusion. In England there was not before Parliament any account of the annual expenditure of the country; nor had there been, until a year or two ago, any such account even laid before the Treasury; but he thought that a full and satisfactory account of the public expenditure ought to be regularly laid before the House. Mr. Burke had said, that, the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster produced 4,000l. a year in money, but they were worth 40,000l. a year in influence. If those estates were to be sold, as Mr. Burke recommended, they would greatly benefit the public income. It might, perhaps, be objected to his (Sir H. Parnell's) Motion, that there was no precedent for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire respecting the Civil List at the beginning of a new reign. But he thought, that if other Parliaments were willing to give the public money away, without inquiring as to its application, they (the present Parliament) ought not to follow such an example. Inquiries respecting the Civil List had been made by Committees in the years 1803, 1804, and 1815. He should conclude by stating, that if the House supported him in that Motion, he would not attempt to refuse what might be considered necessary for the support of his Majesty's dignity and comfort. He had no doubt, that the King would continue to be what he now was, and deserved to be—one of the most popular Monarchs that ever sat upon the Throne of England.—The House, by going into the Committee, would not impair his dignity, nor decrease his popularity; but they would give to their constituents a pledge of their sincerity in diminishing the burthens of the people. He would entreat hon. Gentlemen, before they refused the Committee for which he asked, to consider how much they owed to those whom they represented in that House, to the national Security, and to the Monarch. The right hon. Baronet then moved as an Amendment—"That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the accounts presented to the House by order of his Majesty connected with the Civil List, and to report thereon."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, he still adhered to the opinion which he originally entertained when the subject of the Civil List was first submitted to the House, and which he then expressed; namely, that the proper course was for Government to present to the House estimates of the proposed expenditure and arrangement of the Civil List, rather than to delegate that duty, and the responsibility which it involved, to a Select Committee. He adhered to that opinion, not merely because such had been the usual practice heretofore, but because, even in reference to what the hon. Gentleman considered schemes of economy, he was prepared to maintain that a Select Committee was not calculated to effect any economical object, which it was not perfectly competent to the House, looking at the statements and estimates laid before it, to effect. The hon. Baronet had not very distinctly stated to the House whether he wished the Committee, which he proposed to appoint, to be vested with power to examine witnesses and papers as to the several items of the accounts laid before it, or whether he desired to adhere to the practice previously adopted when committees had been appointed with reference to debts incurred upon the Civil List; namely, that the accounts should be submitted to the Committee for examination, but without power to go into so extensive an investigation, or to call for papers and persons. The hon. Gentleman had not very distinctly stated which of these two courses he meant to suggest.

Sir H. Parnell

was understood to intimate, that he proposed to appoint a Committee merely possessed of power to examine the accounts laid before it, but not to call for witnesses.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

.—The hon. Gentleman now stated that it was not his intention that the proposed committee should have power to examine persons with respect to the items and accounts laid before it, but merely that it should report its opinion on the Civil List. Then, he asked the hon. Baronet, not only in reference to the common sense of the matter, but in reference to opinions expressed by authorities which the hon. Member must revere, because he had long acted with the individuals who had expressed those opinions—he asked the hon. Baronet what additional means or facilities he could devise to effect a public service, by such a committee which he could not already avail himself of by an examination of the documents now upon the table of the House—an examination which it was perfectly competent to the hon. Baronet, and every Member of the House, to make? Indeed, he recollected that upon former occasions Gentlemen upon the other side of the House had said it would be much better to have papers and accounts connected with the Civil List upon the Table, for the satisfaction of the House, than to refer those documents to a Committee, before which an examination of witnesses should be denied. He referred particularly to the sentiments expressed by the late Mr. Tierney on this subject, who, as the hon. Baronet would readily admit, was one of the most active, intelligent, and acute Members of the House, in reference to all matters of this kind. Indeed he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought he had come down provided with an extract from Mr. Tierney's speech upon the subject, but he found he had omitted to bring it; however, he very well remembered that Mr. Tierney said," he would prefer leaving the papers in the hands of Members to the appointment of a committee without power to call for persons and documents." This was not merely an argument used in the course of debate, with a view to a particular purpose. Mr. Tierney acted in consonance with those sentiments, and when appointed upon a committee vested with such powers as were proposed to be conferred in the present instance, he refused to act, and threw up his seat in it. Such then was the opinion entertained, expressed, and acted on by political friends of the hon. Baronet on the occasion of former discussions of a nature similar to the present. The hon. gentleman did not act in conformity with those opinions when he brought forward his Amendment, and he now put it to the hon. Baronet's candour to say, supposing that instead of laying estimates of the Civil List before the House, as he had done, he had stood there the mover for a Committee such as the hon. Gentleman proposed—he put it to the House whether, in such a case, he should not have been told by Members opposite that he was acting in that way with a view to delude the House and the country, to cover a desire for an extravagant Civil List by the sanction of a powerless committee, and to prevent instead of promoting inquiry? No doubt he should have been met with that argument, and with those reproaches, if he had consented to the appointment of a committee without power to enter into an effective examination of the subject: instead of submitting the details of the Civil List to the House in such a manner that Members could have opportunities of suggesting reductions and modifications, as the Bill proceeded in its respective stages. He said, then, he did not think it consistent with his duty as a Minister of the Crown, nor, indeed, conducive to a proper examination of the subject, to accede to the hon. Baronet's motion. But let the House see what it was that the hon. Gentleman proposed to delegate to a committee, without power to call for and examine persons, papers, and records. Not content with empowering a committee, thus constituted, to go into the whole of the estimates of the Civil List, the hon. Baronet wished it to come to a decision as to the best mode of keeping the public accounts. At least the hon. Gentleman's remarks seemed to tend that way. And not only would the hon. Baronet have the committee investigate the various branches of the Civil List, and the best method of keeping the national accounts, but he wished it also to consider whether it might not be proper to sell the lands belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster, and place the produce of the sale to the credit of the public account. The hon. Baronet further wished, that the Committee should examine into the diplomatic expenses. Was it possible that a committee, going into these extensive and difficult inquiries, yet without power to institute a sufficient examination, should ever effect any good? Was it conceivable that its debates and discussions should ever come to any satisfactory conclusion? or that they would not be so prolonged and delayed as to throw impediments in the way of what it must be the desire of the House to expedite, with a view to the public convenience as well as in reference to the dignity of the Crown? But the hon. Gentleman's arguments for a committee were mainly based upon the statements made in the commencement of his speech. He told the House that he could not discover, on the perusal of the papers laid before the House, where the saving of 85,000l. in the present, as compared with the preceding Civil List, was to be found. Having in his hands the paper, containing an account of what transfers had been now made from the Civil List, as formerly granted to his late Majesty to other funds, the hon. Baronet nevertheless inquired whether the fees proposed to be reduced were not to be deducted from the saving of 85,000l. He referred the hon. Gentleman to page 25 of "Accounts and Estimates of the Civil List," where he would find the whole amount of the income of his late Majesty George 4th stated at 1,221,632l.; and then followed certain charges from which the Civil List would be relieved in future—a reduction of items, by the way, which were not savings, but transferred to other funds. In England, a sum of 108,945l.. was transferred; in Ireland, 43,698l.; and the deduction of charges from the hereditary revenue of Scotland was 13,540l.; making a total from which the Civil List was relieved of 166,184l. But, as already stated, these were not savings, but sums transferred, and in the account the reader was referred to three or four preceding papers for the details. It appeared that the whole sum enjoyed by his late Majesty from the Civil List, &c, was 1,221,632l.; deducting from this amount 166,184l. now transferred from the Civil List, the balance was 1,055,448l.; but the estimated amount of the probable future charge was 970,000l., leaving a diminution of charge, after providing for the Queen—a clear saving upon the last Civil List—of 85,448l. Let the hon. Baronet go through the various classes of the Civil List as now proposed, and he would see the items on which the saving-was effected. In a committee the hon. Gentleman would have nothing but the papers now upon the Table, without power of examining witnesses, and without the opportunity of having any difficulties in the statements cleared up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanations. Under such circumstances, no additional information could be afforded by the committee for which the hon. Member asked. The next object to which the hon. Baronet appeared to refer, as constituting a ground for the appointment of a committee, was an examination of the fitness of retaining the present amount of pensions charged upon the Civil List. But how could the hon. Member obtain fuller information or better grounds for discussion in a committee than were already afforded by the papers before the House; in addition to which, pension-lists were in preparation, and would shortly be laid on the Table in pursuance of a motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. Thus the House would have in its own hands the means of judging of the nature and amount of pensions as fully as any committee, which committee would not possess the power of examining witnesses. As far as the question of economy was concerned, the hon. Gentleman could gain no advantage by the appointment of a committee; for that object might as well be promoted by a proposition for a reduction of pensions in the committee upon the Bill. He might content himself with leaving the question of pensions with this single observation, but as the hon. Gentleman had expressed a decided opinion as to the enormous amount of the pensions at the disposal of the Crown, he would only ask the hon. Member to refer to antecedent periods, and observe how small a proportion the pension list now at the disposal of the Crown bore to that which formerly existed. When Mr. Burke proposed to limit the English pension-list to 95,000l., it was with a view to economy, and a great reduction. But the amount of pensions upon the English Civil List was now estimated at a much lower sum (74,000l.) The Irish pension-list was now only 50,000l.; before the Union it amounted to 146,000l. The Scotch pension-list also stood antecedently at a considerably larger amount than at present. If the hon. Gentleman was disposed to comment on the amount of the pension list now at the disposal of the Crown, he must not call it extravagant, as compared with the pension-lists of former periods, but must at once admit that great was the reduction effected in that branch of expenditure. But the next reason why the hon. Baronet was desirous of going into a committee appeared to be, for the purpose of examining into the salaries of foreign ministers. Why not examine the amount of those salaries at present, and at once enter into a discussion as to whether they could be more or less reduced? All the details were before the hon. Member. He could therefore go into the merits of the case. What advantage would the hon. Baronet derive from examining the question of the salaries of the Ambassadors in a room up stairs, instead of investigating the subject in a room in his own residence, and then bringing the matter before the House? The hon. Member said, and said truly, that our expenditure on account of foreign ministers was increased in 1820. He was ready to admit the fact, but was prepared to maintain that the circumstances of the time— the increased number of Ministers—the augmentation made in the allowances of the Ambassadors of other States—the additional expense imposed on our foreign ministers—all rendered an increased expenditure in this department necessary. But though the present amount of our foreign expenditure was greater than formerly, efforts had been systematically made to diminish it, and it had been reduced from time to time. These reductions were made by his noble friend at present at the head of the Foreign-office, and by his predecessor, Lord Dudley; and the present estimate was less by 27,000l. a-year than at an antecedent period. When the hon. Baronet referred to the expenses of our foreign embassies at a former, as compared with the present period, he ought to have stated how considerably the number of our foreign ministers had been increased of late years. Up to 1826 we had only seventeen ministers at foreign Courts; we had now twenty-five, and all in stations so important that it was absolutely indispensable that communications should be kept up with them in this way. In the new States of South America a great augmentation of expense had been necessarily incurred by diplomatic missions, and yet, notwithstanding the increase in number, his noble friend had been able to bring this branch of expenditure within the estimate of 1816, for the maintenance of seventeen foreign ministers, the number then employed. Thinking, therefore, that a reference of the Civil List to the committee, which the hon. Baronet proposed, could give us no additional means of reducing our expenditure, he opposed the Motion. He also opposed it because he thought it proper for Government to incur the responsibility of bringing forward the Civil List, instead of shifting the burthen upon a committee. He wished to say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman's observations upon his speech on a former evening, when he introduced the subject to the notice of the House. He denied the conclusion to which the hon. Baronet had come with respect to the Civil List of 1815. The hon. Gentleman overturned his own proposition for the appointment of a committee, for he said that in 1815–16 we fixed a Civil List on the largest possible scale; but was that Civil List framed without the aid of a committee previously appointed? By no means? Could the hon. Baronet not object with propriety to a Civil List constructed with the assistance of a committee? That was inconsistent with his argument for the appointment of a committee at present. Yet, if the hon. Baronet's opinion as to the excessive amount of that Civil List were correct, we stood a better chance now of arriving at a fair conclusion without a committee than with one. The hon. Baronet seemed to tax him with alluding to the circumstance of there having been no debt upon the late Civil List, and the hon. Member argued, that the fact of no debt being incurred was a proof of extravagance in the Civil List. What did the hon. Baronet consider the circumstance of incurring debts to be? Was it a piece of extravagance to run into or keep out of debt? If a man kept within the limits of his income, was he extravagant, or was his income of necessity enormous? And if he ran into debt, was he the contrary of extravagant, and was his income necessarily limited? If the hon. Baronet argued in this way, he confessed he knew not by what process of reasoning it was possible to answer him. The last argument alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was in reference to a separation of that part of the Civil List, relating to the personal expenditure of the Crown, from those parts which belonged more peculiarly to other branches of the Government of the country; and the hon. Baronet said, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated no reason why he should not depart from the usual practice in this case. He should think that the practice that had uniformly prevailed in the country in this respect, was one which it would not be wise to depart from, even at the present time, when innovation was the fashion. But the hon. Gentleman's rule appeared to be, that all past practices were uniformly and invariably bad, and that we never could be in error if we departed from them. He could not allow the soundness of this doctrine. If the honourable Baronet had pointed out the regular course of practice which had been heretofore adopted on such occasions as the present, and called on the House to follow it, then he could understand the proceeding; but the hon. Baronet had acted in a manner directly contrary. He had before stated, in explicit terms, that balancing all the arguments which could be brought to bear on this question, it was better in his opinion to retain the Civil List in its present form, and on its existing foundation, than to proceed in the way which the hon. Baronet recommended. The hon. Baronet said, in the first place, that the expense of the Civil List, under the existing system, gave to the ill-disposed throughout the country an opportunity of declaiming about his Majesty's enormous income, which they would suppose amounted to upwards of 1,000,000l. a year,—an expenditure that was calculated, in the minds of persons ignorant of the fact, to create an objection against the royal authority. Now he could not agree with the hon. Baronet in his view of the subject. If individuals recurred to the documents and statements which had been produced relative to the Civil List, they must see sufficient to correct this mistaken idea. And he must repeat, that the King did not enjoy the whole of the provision made by Parliament,—it was not all merged in his personal expenditure, but a very large portion of it was appropriated to other and very distinct purposes. Then, he contended, that if they confined the Civil List to what was necessary for private and personal purposes—if they were to pare it down to 500,000l., they would just create the very sort of feeling as to the amount of income, which the hon. Baronet was anxious to prevent. What, he asked, would be the impression on the public mind—what would be the feeling of those individuals who objected to the grant of 1,000,000l.. partly for private, and partly for public purposes—if they were told that 500,000l. a-year was to be appropriated to the former object alone? He was perfectly convinced that it would have the effect, the decided effect of bringing the Monarch into oboloquy. What would the people say when they were told that the Monarch had 500,000l. a-year for his own private and personal gratification? What would they think when they heard that no public service was mixed up with this grant—but that it was wholly devoted to the private and personal gratification of his Majesty? He would maintain that such a course was more likely to injure the monarchy, and was more calculated to bring it into obloquy and distrust than the existing system. But the hon. Baronet had another reason for wishing to exclude the Ambassadors from the Civil List. He wished that the House should have annually an opportunity of declaring whether or not a Minister should be sent to this Court and to that country. If such were to be the result of the hon. Baronet's proposition, he hesitated not to say, that he looked on it, not as likely to be advantageous, but greatly injurious, to the real power and political greatness of the country. It was not for that House to say whether political relations should be kept up with one Power or another. The Constitution had wisely placed that authority in the hands of the Crown. He would not detain the House with any further observations; but convinced as he was, that no other system was so proper as that which had been proposed by Ministers, he should meet the Motion of the hon. Baronet by a decided negative.

Mr. Bankes

said, that Ministers having laid before the House, as was customary on former occasions, an Estimate of what appeared to them to be necessary for the Civil List, he could see no reason why the documents connected with the subject should not be submitted to a Select Committee. That certainly was the most commodious way in which the House could become acquainted with all the details of the question. He was not aware of the use or benefit of that sort of mystery which was attempted to be thrown over this important subject. How, he asked, could it be advantageous to the Crown, or satisfactory to the country? In his opinion, this subject ought to be clearly brought within the sphere of the intelligence of that House—as, indeed, every thing connected with the finance of the country ought to be. It was the more necessary that this subject should undergo investigation in a committee, because, according to the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, there was a new classification of the Civil List, with reference to certain points. They were told that some parts of the Civil List were to be taken away, and that certain new arrangements were to be made. If that were so, where could those alterations be so well considered as in a committee? There could not possibly be a subject more fit to be investigated and determined by Gentlemen above stairs. The point which the right hon. Gentleman last noticed had reference to foreign Ministers. He knew that that subject had been formerly debated, and he confessed, that he had not, as yet, formed a decided opinion, whether the expense of foreign ministers should continue to be charged on the Civil List, or whether it should be differently provided for. He was anxious that the inconvenience which resulted from the running in debt of the Crown, with reference to this and other charges, should be completely avoided. In touching on this point, he must be allowed to observe, that no one had argued, in the course of the debate, that that House should assume the right of declaring with what Power this country should, or should not, keep up political relations by means of Ambassadors. He would ask whether the explanation given on the subject of the Civil List by Ministers was so perfectly clear that Parliament ought to be satisfied with it? He did not think that it was, and he was quite sure that a great deal of useful information might be derived from an inquiry in a committee. When the proposition for a committee was opposed, he called on hon. Members to point out the inconvenience of it; and if they could not do that, he contended that they were not justified in opposing it.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments, had confirmed him in the opinion that the question ought to be referred to a committee, and he, therefore, should vote for the right hon. Baronet's Motion.

Mr. Calcraft

was not aware, that any committee, on an occasion of this kind, when provision was about to be made to support the dignity of the Crown, had ever been appointed to act as assessors. The committee to which the hon. Baronet had particularly alluded was appointed by that House in order to give satisfaction to the country, by endeavouring to effect some relief of its burthens. It was under these circumstances that the appointment of that committee took place. But how did they stand with respect to the Civil List? The amount of that List was settled in 1815, and, from 1820, when his late Majesty succeeded to the Throne, up to the present moment, that Civil List had been found sufficient for its purpose. No debt had been incurred—no additional charge had taken place,—and yet, when his Majesty's Ministers proposed, not an increase to the Civil List as it now stood, but an absolute reduction, as his right hon. friend had shown, of 85,000l., and in addition to that, by certain transfers, a farther diminution of 50,000l. making a total of 135,000l., they were called on to submit the whole question to a committee. In making this statement, he of course did not touch upon the cessation of the allowance to the Duke of Clarence, because he could not consider it as arising out of any economical arrangement. He stood there to speak his opinion freely, and he was astonished that any man, conversant with figures, could state the case otherwise than he had done. The allowance to the Duke of Clarence was a saving, but it certainly did not arise out of any economical arrangement. They had now, for the first time, to deal with a Civil List, which, during an experience of sixteen years, had not run in debt; on that List his right hon. friend proposed to make a very considerable reduction; yet the hon. Baronet, notwithstanding this, said, "We ought to submit the subject to a committee." He did not wish the committee to consider those points which had reference to the personal splendor of the Crown, but he wanted them to apply themselves to other items and articles which were included in the Civil List. Now, whether, it would, or would not, be better to divide those items from the others, and to leave them to be annually voted by Parliament—whether it would, or would not be better, for Parliament to confine itself to voting that which was necessary to the splendor of the Crown for life— this, he confessed, was a point on which he had not entirely made up his mind, as his right hon. colleague had done. He stated what he thought and felt, as it was his duty to do; and if he spoke more explicitly than others, such conduct he was sure would not be met with disapprobation. The hon. Baronet admitted that the worst thing that could be done was, to grant the Crown so little as to render it liable to be involved in debt, and thus to compel it to apply to Parliament for further provision; and yet the hon. Baronet was not content to take the Civil List, which had answered during a trial of sixteen years, on which a considerable saving was proposed, but he called also for a committee. He saw no necessity for such a committee, and he should vote against it. He did not think, the splendor and dignity of the Crown being provided for, that a reduction in the other items ought to be made by a committee up-stairs in preference to its being the act of the House itself. Reductions might be made in the course of examinations in that House, and it ought to be recollected, that this measure must go through a great number of stages before it was perfected.

Lord Althorp

observed, that when the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact of Mr. Tierney's having refused, on one occasion, to serve on a committee, because it was not empowered to examine persons, papers, and records, it did not, in his mind, bear strongly against the argument of his hon. friend. He did not mean to urge it personally against his right hon. friend, who had just sat down, that in 1815 he supported the proposition which was then made, and to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded; but he wished to observe, that at the commencement of a new reign, in 1820, his right hon. friend was one of 157 who voted for the extensive motion of Lord John Russell, the object of which was to refer the Civil List Estimates to a committee, that they might be properly examined, though he opposed such a course now. It was his wish and the wish of his honourable friends near him to have a committee, because they were of opinion that they ought to compare the items of the present scale with those which had formerly been submitted to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman told them, that the proposed reduction was to be found in page 25 of the papers. He knew that; but the House could only see it there in the lump, and not in particulars, as he wished to be made acquainted with it. If they agreed to the reduction without entering into particulars, they were likely to fall into considerable error. It was quite impossible for them, without a more detailed examination than could be had in the House, to arrive at an accurate decision. It was said, that they could come to no satisfactory conclusion unless the committee had leave to send for persons, papers, and records. Such a permission would, he knew, be a very great increase of power; but could no information be afforded, if that power were refused? He admitted, that a great degree of delicacy ought to be observed with respect to certain heads of the Civil List. For his own part, he felt no desire to examine closely into them; on the contrary, he wished not to have such a power. But with respect to many other heads, to which no such feeling of delicacy attached, he conceived that much valuable information might be elicited, and therefore he would support the Motion of his hon. friend. There were many points, in the other items, that required explanation; and certainly it was proper that the House should have the means of arriving at a clear understanding of the whole matter. He was of opinion, that those items should undergo a thorough examination, which would render the subject more clear and tangible than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, or the papers that had been laid on the Table; for after attending to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, he could not see in what way the diminution of expense, to the amount of 85,000l. was made. There was nothing in the papers which had been laid before them that explained that point; and he conceived that it would be highly improper for that House to vote 970,000l. a-year for the whole of his Majesty's reign without due inquiry. To call on them to vote such sum without entering into the details, in order that they might see in what manner that money was to be applied, appeared to him so monstrous a demand, that he was astonished how the Government could make it; and till he had heard it he did not conceive it possible that any Government should have proposed to draw so largely on the faith of the Parliament. He hoped the House would not place quite so much confidence. The right hon. Gentleman said, that by coming down and moving for a committee of this kind, Members interfered with the constitutional authority of the Ministers of the Crown. He never wished to do that. But he could not help feeling that it was not right for Ministers merely to make a statement—and that not a clear one—and then, at once, without further consideration, to make such a proposition as this to the House. He thought that the country would have a very great and just right to complain, after the pledges on the subject of economy and retrenchment, which many Members of that House had given to their constituents, if they voted the Civil List without proper examination and inquiry. For these reasons he should vote for the Motion of his hon. friend. His hon. friend could not possibly intend to go into a general and minute detail of the household items. Certainly not; he believed his hon. friend meant no such thing. But his hon. friend felt, as he did, that there were many items which ought not to be mixed up with the Civil List. One of the arguments against the appointment of a committee was, that it might give rise to misrepresentation. He was of opinion that it would have precisely the contrary effect; and he was anxious, in order that the public might be strictly informed on the subject that a separation of certain items from the Civil List should be effected.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

said, it had been contended, that, on former occasions, no such committee as that now called for was appointed. Now, allowing that argument to take its full course, he should only say, in answer to it, that it was no reason, because preceding Houses of Parliament had neglected their duty, that the present Parliament should therefore neglect its duty. But they were told that no committee was appointed at the accession of George 3rd. Why, he asked, was that? Because one gross sum was voted for the total amount of the Civil List, and no statement was laid before Parliament. The Parliament, at that time, was perfectly ignorant as to what part of the grant was applied to the personal splendor of the Monarch; what part to the salary of foreign ministers, or what part to defray the expense of public functionaries at home. At that period it was not the custom for Parliament to inquire into the subject. The first instance of inquiry was that introduced by Mr. Burke, when he divided the Civil List into different classes. A new principle was then established; and from that period, and from that period only, were they to date the examination of the Civil List. At the commencement of the last reign, a proposition for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the Civil List was negatived. When, however, his Majesty Geo. 3rd died, it was necessary to place the establishment at Windsor on a new footing. With that view a committee upstairs was appointed. He (Mr. Wynn) served on that committee, with his hon. friend the member for Dorsetshire. That committee had not power to send for papers, persons, and records; but Lord Castlereagh was a member of it; and it was but doing justice to his noble friend to say, that he gave every information in his power. He allowed every member of that committee to come down to the House, and to use the information which he had received in the committee as a ground for requiring more if it were necessary. That committee examined most minutely into the Windsor establishment, and it made a report on which the House acted. The estimate for Windsor was, on several points, curtailed by that committee. The number of Equerries was reduced, as being unnecessarily large. A Motion was afterwards made by a gallant Officer to restore the number, but the House adhered to the recommendation of the committee. He believed that feelings of delicacy made it unpleasant to some Gentlemen at that time to go into such an inquiry; but, in his opinion, no such circumstances existed at present.

Mr. Herries

who rose amidst loud cries of "Question," said, he could assure Gentlemen that he did not mean to detain them long. His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had placed on so clear a ground, the reasons which ought to induce the House to adopt the course which he recommended on this occasion—he had so fully supported his proposition by undeniable precedents and conclusive arguments—that it was quite unnecessary for him to enter at any length on a repetition of that which had been so ably stated by his right hon. friend. The hon. Baronet had taken a very short way of enforcing his proposition. He had laid down a principle perfectly new, and to him it appeared no less strange than it was novel. The hon. Baronet contended, not that all precedents ought to be blindly followed, but that they ought to be blindly avoided. The hon. Baronet said—"Because these precedents are established, let us shun them—let us adopt some other system, of which parliamentary history affords no example." Now, if the hon. Baronet carried that doctrine further, if he introduced it when great constitutional principles were debated, it must inevitably lead to revolution. He, however, contended, that they were bound to look to precedents; if they did not, they were likely to plunge into the deepest confusion. They ought now to pursue the same course which had heretofore been adopted on all occasions when the question of fixing the Civil List came under the cognizance of Parliament. There was a new accession to the Throne, and the acknowledged course was, to make a proper provision for the King without the intervention of a committee. Since the time of William 3rd, the necessary sum was invariably voted without any previous inquiry by a committee. What was the object to be gained by this delicate inquiry? Unless a case were made out, proving the difficulty of understanding the subject, there was no ground for requiring this detailed examination. No man, who applied his mind to the accounts laid on the Table, could fail to make himself master of them much better than he was likely to do by the labours of a committee. The difference between the Civil List now proposed, and that which formerly existed, was as clear as figures could make it; and he should be sorry if a Committee of that House were appointed to investigate and examine accounts which were perfectly plain. There was, on the face of the papers, a saving of 135,000l. a-year, and no examination by a committee would render that fact more clear or more manifest. Reference had been made to the manner in which the public accounts were kept in another country. He would not say that some improvement might not be made in the mode of keeping the accounts, but he must say, that Statesmen of the country alluded to had complained that the accounts were not kept as clear there as they were here. In one thing the hon. Member would see that there was a striking difference in favour of economy, as respected this country. In that country, a revenue of 37,000,000l. was collected at an expense of 5,200,000l., while in this a revenue of 59,000,000l. was collected at an expense of only 3,700,000l. Reverting to the question before the House, he must say that hon. Members on the other side had failed to assign any good ground why the precedents of former reigns should be departed from. If the Crown applied for aid, it would be a proper occasion for the appointment of a committee; but in the case before the House, he thought that sufficient information had been given on all the items to enable it to proceed without inquiry, and on these grounds he would oppose the Motion for the Committee.

Mr. Holme Sumner

said, that the noble Lord (Althorp) had stated, that most of the Members had given pledges to their constituents to vote for economy. He had given no pledge, but he felt himself bound as much as those who had, to do his duty by his constituents and the country. He owned he was grievously disappointed at the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had said that there was a saving of 135,000l., but when they added the 50,0007. for the Queen, without subtracting the 38,000l. which ought to be deducted as the allowance of the Duke of Clarence, the thing was not fairly stated. Between the 38,000l. which was allowed to the Duke of Clarence, and the 50,000l. allowed for the Queen, there was only a difference of 12,000l., which, added to 85,000l., was the whole amount of the saving, and this was much less than the country had a right to expect. Under these circumstances, he would not only support the Amendment for the Committee, but if the hon. Bart. had moved to send for persons, papers, and records, he would also support him, except on the first three items of the Civil List. These he would except out of delicacy to the Sovereign, but on all the other parts of the expenditure he would support the fullest inquiry. He entirely concurred in what was said, that other accounts not properly belonging to it should not be heaped on the Civil List.

The House then divided on the original Motion! For it 204; Against it 233; Majority 29. The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers by the Opposition side of the House.

The Amendment on Sir H. Parnell's Motion was then put and agreed to.

Mr. Hobhouse

asked the right hon. Secretary of State, whether, after such an expression of the opinion of the House, it was the intention of Ministers to retain their places, and continue to carry on the business of Government.

No answer was given.

Mr. Hobhouse

said, that he would take an opportunity of bringing the question to an issue [cries of "Move, move."]

Mr. Brougham

said, that the question put by his hon. friend was, under the circumstances, very natural; but he thought at present it was premature. He would take this opportunity of suggesting to his right hon. friend (Sir H. Parnell) whether it would not be better to postpone the appointment of the Com- * While the Members who went out for the Amendment remained in the lobby, Mr. Brougham addressed them, and requested them not to go away after the division; for that if they were defeated on that Amendment, it was the intention of the hon. member for Dorsetshire to move another for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into all the items of the Civil List after the first three. This notice was received with cheers. mittee till to-morrow [cries of "Now, now," were loudly repeated from the Opposition side;] and Mr. Brougham withdrew his suggestion.

The Committee appointed.

The following are given as the Lists of the Majority, Minority, and Absentees.

Acland, Sir T. D. Dickinson, W.
Adeane, H. J. Douglas, W. R. K.
Acheson, Lord Duncombe, T. S.
Althorp, Viscount Duncombe, A.
Anson, Sir G. Duncombe, W.
Arcedeckne, A. Dundas, C.
Astley, Sir J. D. Dundas, T.
Attwood, M. Ebrington, Viscount
Baillie, J. E. Ellice, E.
Bainbridge, E. T. Ellis, G. J. W. A.
Bankes, H. Encombe, Lord
Baring, F. Estcourt, T. G. B. jun.
Baring, Wm. B. Euston, Earl of
Baring, Sir Thomas Evans, W.
Baring, F. Jun. Fardell, I.
Bateson, Sir R. Farrand, R.
Benett, John Ferguson, R. C.
Bentinck, Lord W. G. Fitzgerald, Lord W.
Bernal, R. Fitzgibbon, R. H.
Bethel, R. Fitzroy, Lord J.
Biddulph, R. M. Foley, E. T.
Blake, Sir F. Foley, T. H.
Blaney, C. D. Folkes, Sir W. J. H. B.
Blandford, Marquis Fordwich, Lord
Blount E. Fortescue, G. M.
Bouverie, S. P. P. Frankland, Robert
Brabazon, Lord Fyler, T. B.
Bradshaw, J. Gisborne, T.
Briscoe, J. Gordon, R.
Brougham, J. Graham, Sir J. R. G.
Brougham, H. Graham, Sir S.
Browne, W. Grant, C.
Browne, J. Grant, Robert
Brownlow, Charles Grattan, James
Buck, L. W. Guest, J. J.
Bunbury, Sir H. E. Guise, Sir W., Bart.
Burke, Sir J. Gurney, B. H.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Harris, G.
Burrell, W. Harvey, D. W.
Byng, G. Heathcote, Sir W.
Calthorpe, F. G. Heron, Sir R.
Calvert, N. Hobhouse, J. C.
Campbell, Hon. G. P. Hodges, T. L.
Carter, J. B. Hodgson, J.
Cavendish, Wm. Howard, W.
Chapman, M. L. Howard, P. H.
Cholmeley, M. J. Howard, H.
Churchill, Lord C. S. Howard, R.
Clinton, C. T. F. Howick, Viscount
Colborne, N. W. R. Hughes, W. H.
Curteis, H. B. Hume, J.
Dawson, A. Ingilby, Sir W. A.
Davies, T. H. H. Jephson, C. D. O.
Denison, W. J. Jerningham, H. V. S.
Denman, T. Johnston, J.
Dick, Q. Keck, G. A. L.
Kenyon, L. Robinson, G. R.
Kennedy, T. F. Russell, Lord
Kerrison, Sir E. Rumbold, C. E.
Killeen, Lord Ruthven, E. S.
King, General Ryder, G. D.
Knatchbull, Sir E. Sadler, M. T.
Knight, Robert Sanford, E. A.
Labouchere, Henry Sandon, Viscount
Lamb, G. Schonswar, G.
Lambert, J. S. Sebright, Sir J. S.
Langston, J. H. Sefton, Earl of
Lawley, Fras. Seymour, Lord
Leader, N. P. Sibthorp, C. D. L. W.
Lee, Lee, J. Smith, J. A.
Lefevre, C. S. Smith, J.
Lefroy, A. Smith, R. V.
Lefroy, T. Stormont, Viscount
Legh, T. Stuart, Lord D. C.
Lennox, Lord J. G. Stuart, William
Lester, B. L. Stevens, S. L.
Littleton, Edward J. Stewart, Sir M. S.
Lumley J. S. Strutt, E.
Macauley, T. B. Staunton, Sir. G. T.
Macdonald, Sir J. Stanley, Lord
Mackintosh, Sir J. Stanley, E. G. S.
Malcolm, N. jun. Stuart, Lord P. J. H.
Mandeville, Viscount Sumner, G. H.
Marjoribanks, S. Sykes, D.
Marshall, W. Taylor, M. A.
Martin, John Tennyson, C.
Maxwell, H. Thomson, C. P.
Mills, R. W. Tomes, J.
M'Namara, W. N. Townsend, Lord C. V. F.
Morpeth, Viscount Tudor, G.
Morrison, J. Tufton, H.
Newark, Lord Tullamore, Viscount
Nugent, Lord Tyrell, J. T.
O'Connell, Daniel Tyrell, C.
O'Connor, O. Valentia, Viscount
O'Ferrall, R. M. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Ord, W. Waithman, Ald.
Osborne, Lord F. Wall, C. B.
Palmer, C. S. Warburton, H.
Palmer, R. Warrender, Sir G.
Palmer, C. F. Watson. Rt. Hon. F.
Palmerston, Viscount Webb, Col.
Parnell, Sir H. Welby, G. E.
Patten, J. W. Wellesley, P.T. L.
Pelham, C. A. W. Western, C. C.
Penrhyn, E. Weyland, J.
Pendarvis, E. W. W. White, H.
Philips, G. R. White, S.
Ponsonby, Hon. G. Whitmore, W. W.
Portman, F. B. Wilks, J.
Price, R. Wilbraham, G.
Price, Sir Robert Willoughby, H.
Pryse, P. Wood,
Ramsbottom, Wood, C.
Rice, T. S. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Rickford, W. Wrightson, W. B.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Rochford, G. Wynn, C. W. W.
Robarts, A. W. Wyse, T. jun.
Robinson, Sir G.
A'Court, E. H. Atkins, J.
Agnew, Sir A. Alexander, J. Du Pre
Alexander, J. Eastnor, Viscount
Antrobus, G. C. Egerton, Sir P. M. G.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Egerton, W.
Arbuthnot, C. Egerton, W. T.
Ashley, Lord Eliot, Lord
Astell, W. Fane, Sir H.
Baillie, H. D. Fergusson, Sir R. A.
Baillie, J. Fitzgerald, M.
Baldwin, C. B. Fleming, J.
Balford, J. Forbes, Sir C.
Bankes, G. Fremantle, Sir T. F.
Barne, F. Gordon, J. A.
Bastard, J. Gordon, W.
Beckett, Sir J. Gore, W. O.
Bell, M. Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.
Beresford, M. Gower, Lord F. L.
Beresford, Sir J. P. Graham, Lord M. W.
Bernard, Viscount Graham, Marquis
Blair, W. Grant, F. W.
Bonham, F. R. Grant, Sir A.
Boyle, J. Gresley, Sir R.
Bruce, M. Gunning, Sir R. H.
Brudenell, Lord Hardinge, Sir H.
Brydges, Sir J. W. H. Hart, G. V.
Burrard, G. Hastings, Sir C. A.
Calcraft, J. Hay, Lord J.
Calvert, J. Herries, J. C.
Callaghan, D. Hill, Sir R.
Campbell, A. Hill, Lord A.
Carnegie, Sir J. Holmes, W.
Carrington, Sir C. E. Hope, H. T.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hope, J. T.
Cartwright, W. R. Hope, Sir A.
Cecil, Lord T. Holdsworth, A. H.
Chichester, Sir A. Houldsworth, T.
Cholmondeley, Lord Hoy, J. B.
H. H. Irving, J.
Clerk, Sir G. Johnstone, J. J. H.
Clive, R. H. Jones, J.
Clive, Viscount Kemmis, T. A.
Cockburn, Sir G. Kilderbee, S. H.
Cockerell, Sir C. King, R.
Cole, A. H. Knox, T.
Coote, E. Knox, J. H.
Coote, Sir C. Lee, J. L.
Cornewall, F. H. Lewis, T. F.
Corry, Viscount Lindsay, J.
Corry, H. L. Loch, J.
Cotterell, Sir J. G. Lowther, Viscount
Courtenay, T. P. Lushington, J. L.
Cradock, S. Mackenzie, Sir J. W.
Croker, J. W. Mackillop, J.
Curzon, R. Mackinnon, C.
Cust, P. F. Maitland, Viscount
Cust, E. Maitland, A.
Dalrymple, Sir A. J. Marryat, J.
Darlington, Earl of Martin, Sir T. B.
Dawson, G. R. M'Clintock, J.
Davis, R. H. Milbank, M.
Doherty, J. Miller, W. H.
Douglas, Hon. C. Monteith, H.
Dowdeswell, J. E. Morison, J.
Drummond, H. H. Munday, F.
Dugdale, D. S. Murray, Sir G.
Dundas, R. A. Nicholl, Sir J.
Dundas, W. Norreys, Lord
East, Sir E. H. Nugent, Sir G.
O'Brien, W. S. Sidney, Sir P. C.
O'Hara, J. Smith, Sir C. E.
Palk, Sir L. V. Smith, S.
Pearse, J. Smith, A.
Perceval, S. Somerset, Lord G. C. H.
Pechell, Sir S. J. B. Somerset, Lord R. E. H.
Petit, L. H. Sotheron, F.
Peel, Sir R. Spottiswoode, A.
Peel, W. Y. Stuart, H. V.
Philpotts, J. Stanley, W. S.
Phipps, E. Strathaven, Lord
Planta, J. Stuart, J.
Pollen, Sir J. W. Sugden, Sir E. B.
Powell, W. E. Taylor, G. W.
Powiett, Lord W. J. F. Thompson, Ald.
Prendergast, M. P. Thynne, Lord W. Capt.
Pringle, Sir W. Tomline, W. E.
Pringle, Alex. Townshend, J. R.
Price, S. G. Trench, F. W.
Pusey, P. Trevor, G. R.
Rae, Sir W. Trevor, A.
Raine, J. Ure, M.
Reid, Sir J. R. Valletort, Viscount
Rogers, E. Vernon, G. G. V.
Rose, Sir G. H. Villiers, Lord
Russell, C. Vivian, Sir R. H.
Scarlett, Sir J. Walpole, J.
Scott, Sir S. West, F. R.
Scott, H. F. Williams, O.
Seymour, H. B. S. Winchester, H.
Severn, J. C. Wortley, Hon. J. S.
Shelley, Sir J. Wood, T.
Shelley, J. V. Wortley, Hon. C.
Shirley, E. J.

For the Question 204.

Tellers Lord Althrop.
Sir Henry Parnell, bt.

Against the Question 233.

Tellers G. R. Dawson.
Joseph Planta.

Majority for the Question 29.

The following Gentlemen desired to have it known that they were on the spot, but by some accident or other were excluded from voting for Sir H. Parnell's Motion:—

Anson, Hon. Geo. Gregson, John
Brown, Dominick Kemp, T. R.
Chichester, Arthur Marion, O'Gorman
Coke, T. W. O'Grady, Col.
Forbes, John Russell,
Ferguson, Sir R. Whitbread, W. H.

Of this very important division on which the Duke of Wellington resigned his office, the following additional particulars may be found not uninteresting:

Abercromby, G. R. Belfast, Earl of
Anson, Hon. G. Belgrave, Viscount
Apsley, Lord Beresford, Lord G. T.
Archdall, M. Bernard, T.
Bankes, W. J. Blackett, C.
Baring, A. Borradaile, R.
Baynton, S. A. Bourne, W. S.
Beaumont, T. W. Bouverie, D. P.
Boyle, Lord Grosvenor, R.
Bradshaw, R. H. Gurney, H.
Brogden, J. Handcock, R.
Browne, D. Hawkins, J. H.
Bruen, H. Heathcote, Sir G.
Buller, C. Hill, Lord G.
Buller, J. W. Holmesdale, Viscount
Bulwer, H. L. Hotham, Lord
Burdett, Sir F. Howard, F. G.
Burton, H. Hughes, W. L.
Buxton, J. J. Hulse, Sir C.
Buxton, T. F. Ingestrie, Viscount
Byng, G. S. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Campbell, J. Jenkins, R.
Campbell, W. F. Jermyn, Earl of
Capel, J. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Cavendish, H. F. C. Jolliffe, G. E.
Cavendish, Lord G. Jones, T.
Cawthorne, J. F. Kavanagh, T.
Chandos, Marquis of Kemp, T. R.
Chaplin, C. Kennedy, Lord
Chaplin, T. King, Sir J. D.
Chichester, A. Lascelles, H.
Clements, J. M. Lemon, Sir C.
Clive, E. B. Lennard, T. B.
Clive, H. Leslie, C. P.
Cocks, J. Lloyd, Sir E. P.
Coke, T. W. Loch, J.
Constable, Sir T. A. C. Loughborough, Lord
Cooke, Sir H. F. Louvaine, Lord
Cooper, E. S. Lowther, Sir J.
Cradock, J. H. Lowther, H. C.
Cripps, J. Lowther, J. H.
Dottin, A. R. Luttrell, J. F.
Douro, Marquis of Lygon, H. B.
Drake, T. T. Maberly, J.
Drake, W. T. Mahon, Viscount
Duff, A. Mahon, J. P. O. G.
Dugdale, W. S. Manners, Lord R.
Duncannon, Lord Maule, W. R.
Dundas, Sir R. L. Meynell, H.
Dundas, J. C. Mildmay, P. St. J.
Dundas, H. Miles, P. J.
Durham, Sir P. Miles, W.
Ellis, A. F. Milton, Viscount
Estcourt, T. H. S. B. Montgomery, Sir J.
Ewing, J. Moore, G.
Fane, H. S. Morgan, C. M. R.
Fane, J. T. Morgan, Sir C.
Fane, J. Mostyn, Sir T.
Fergusson, Sir R. C. Mountcharles, Earl
Fitzgerald, W. F. V. Newport, Sir J.
Fitzgerald, J. Neeld, J.
Foley, J. H. H. Noel, Sir G. N.
Forbes, J. North, J. H.
Forbes, Viscount O'Neill, J. B. R.
Forester, G. C. W. Ogle, Sir C.
French, A. O'Grady, S.
Freshfield, J. W. Ossory, Earl of
Garlies, Viscount, Owen, Sir J.
Gascoyne, J. Owen, H. O.
Gilbert, D. Oxmantown, Lord
Gordon, Sir J. W. Peach, N. W.
Gordon, J. Pennefather, M.
Greene, T. Pelham, J. C.
Gregson, J. Penruddocke, J. H.
Greville, Sir C. J. Phillips, Sir R. B. P.
Grimston, Viscount Pigott, G. G. W.
Pitt, J. Traill, G.
Polhill, F. Tunno, E. R.
Ponsonby, W. F. S. Twiss, H.
Prittle, F. A. Thynne, Lord J.
Ramsden, J. C. Tynte, C. K. K.
Roberts, W. A. Uxbridge, Earl of
Ross, C. Vaughan, Sir R. W.
Rose, G. P. Vaughan, J. E.
Russell, W. Vere, J. J. H.
Russell, R. G. Villiers, T. H.
Russell, J. Walrond, B.
Saunderson, A. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Shaw, F. Ward, W.
Slaney, R. A. Wemyss, J.
Smith, T. A. Wetherell, Sir C.
Smith, G. Whitbread, W. H.
Smith, R. Whitmore, T.
Somerville, Sir M. Wigram, W.
Spence, G. Williams, J.
Stewart, Sir H. Williams, T. P.
St. Paul, Sir H. D. C. Williams, Sir R.
Surrey, Earl of Williams, R.
Sutton, C. M. Wilson, Sir R. T.
Talbot, C. R. M. Worcester, Marquis of
Tavistock, Marquis of Wood, M.
Tennant, C. Wyndham, W.
Thompson, G. L. Wynn, C. W. G.
Thomson, P. B. Wynn, J.
Thynne, Lord H. F. Yorke, Sir J. S.
Townshend, Lord J.N.
Acland, Sir T. D. Hume, J.
Adeane, H. J. Ingilby, Sir W.
Althorp, Lord Keck, G. A.
Astley, Sir J. D. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Bankes, H. Lawley, F.
Benett, J. Littleton, E. J.
Bethell, R. Lumley, J. F.
Briscoe, J. I. Mandeville, Visct.
Brougham, H. Morpeth, Lord
Bunbury, Sir H. E. Osborne, Lord F. G.
Burrell, W. Palmer, R.
Byng, G. Patten, J. W.
Calvert, N. Pendarvis, E. W.
Curteis, H. B. Portman, E. B.
Denison, W. J. Price, Sir R.
Duncombe, Hon. W. Sandford, E. A.
Dundas, C. Sebright, Sir J. T.
Ebrington, Visct. Stanley, Lord
Foley, T. H. Tyrell, J. T.
Foulkes, Sir W. Tyrell, C.
Graham, Sir J. R. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Guise, Sir W. B. Western, C. C.
Heathcote, Sir W. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Hodges, T. L.
Bell, M. Munday, F.
Cartwright, W. R. Norreys, Lord
Cotterell, Sir J. G. Powlett, Lord W.
Dugdale, G. S. Somerset, Lord G.
Egerton, W. Somerset, Lord R.
Fleming, J. Sotheron, F.
Hill, Sir R. Strathaven, Lord
Lowther, Viscount
Beaumont, T. W. Lowther, H. C.
Belgrave, Visct. Lygon, H. B.
Cavendish, Lord G. Manners, Lord R.
Chandos, Marquis of Morgan, Sir C.
Chaplin, C. Noel, Sir G.
Coke, T. W. Pelham, J. C.
Dickinson, W. Russell, W.
Fane, J. Smith, Hon. R.
Heathcote, Sir G. Stewart, W.
Lowther, Sir J. Tavistock, Marquis of
Acheson, Lord Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.
Bateson, Sir R. Grattan, J.
Blaney, C. D. Howard, H.
Brabazon, Lord Killeen, Lord
Browne, Hon. W. King, Hon. H.
Browne, J. Lambert, J. S.
Brownlow, C. Lefroy, A.
Burke, Sir J. M'Namara, W. N.
Chapman, M. L. Maxwell, H.
Dawson, A. O'Connell, D.
Fitzgerald, Lord W. O'Connor, Don.