the sum of 9000l. per annum, exclusive of 4000l. from the civil list: at the death of one of them, the survivors to have 10,000l. each; and the same to continue when there should be two survivors only; the sole survivor of the whole to receive 12,000l. He concluded with moving an annuity of 36,000l. to be granted to the King for the purpose abovementioned. Mr. Tierney did not think the sum stated too much for separate establishments for the Princesses, but he did not see why it should be taken for granted that they would desire to cease forming one family as at present, in which case, the sum would be greater than necessary. His greatest objection, however, to the present vote, was the piece-meal way in which the additions to the civil list had been made, and which had imperceptibly arrived at an extent, which he stated, including the sum now demanded, to be of the enormous amount of 1,668,000l. He thought that the 36,000l. proposed might be saved from the civil list by a fundamental inquiry into its several branches of expenditure, which could not, however, be effectually made while the right hon. gentleman told them that they might examine accounts, but should not examine persons. He had another observation to make, which was with respect to the provision for the Princess of Wales, which was comparatively inadequate to her station. She was the wife of the Regent, and as much the representative of the queen, as the Regent was of his Majesty. He then alluded to the separation be tween the high parties in question, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intimate knowledge of the circumstances, as having been her Royal Highness's counsel and champion in the investigation which had been so much talked of. This hint from the hon. gentleman seemed to be a signal for the members in opposition to take up the cause of the Princess of Wales, which became the principal topic of the remaining debate. In the course of it every provocation was given to Mr. Perceval to induce him to open on a subject with which he was supposed to be so well acquainted, but nothing more was obtained from him than the following declaration,-That neither in his capacity of counsellor to her Royal Highness, nor in any other character whatever, had he any charge against her Royal Highness, or the means of bringing forward any charge, and that he never meant to cast the slightest reflection upon her. As to this discussion, he had no delegated authority; no commands to propose an additional grant for the Princess of Wales. Nevertheless, if he could collect that it was the sense of parliament that an additional provision should be made, he had no doubt that he should shortly be fully authorized to recommend it. Such, however, was probably by no means the wish of the gentlemen in opposition, as it would have been too inconsistent with their professed unwillingness to lay fresh burdens on the people. After more conversation on the subject, the resolution was put, and agreed to without a division. On the question for the third reading of the bill formed upon this resolution, April 17th, Mr. Tierney Tierney rose to state his objections. He could not casily comprehend why the present act was to take place immediately, when the former was intended to take place till the king's demise. It was not to be supposed that the amiable Princesses would abandon their Royal parents in their affliction to spend 36,000l. a year under another roof. He would put the question directly to the right hon. gentle man, were the Princesses to have an establishment independent of the Queen? If so, what was to be done with the saving that must in that case arise out of the civil list as to the general expenditure of the Queen's household? He also objected to the fund upon which these annuities were charged, which was not the hereditary revenue of the crown, but the consolidated fund, thereby giving no chance of a relief from this pressure on the public. The different items of the joint establishment for the Queen and her daughters amounted to 184,000l. a year, and was not this sufficient in such times? After some other observations on the household establishment, which he denominated an ingenious mode of providing for those who had the good fortune to be in favour with the minister, he moved the amendment, instead of dating the bill from Feb. 18th last, to limit its taking effect to the king's demise. The Chancellor of the Exche quer made a reply to only a part of the objections of the last speaker, because many of his arguments were wholly inapplicable to the question before the house. With respect to that of the fund upon which the sum was to be charged, he thought the hon. gentleman could scarcely be serious, since it was notorious that the hereditary revenues of the crown had merged in the consolidated fund. He did not believe that the princesses had any intention of setting up a separate establishment, but it was no reason that they should be compelled to a residence at Windsor during the rest of their lives. Several members spoke in opposition to the bill; and the situation of the Princess of Wales was again brought into the debate. In return to some questions on the subject put by Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Secretary Ryder observed, that if he knew any thing of the feelings of the public on this topic, there was no part of the conduct of the hon. gentlemen opposite which had created more disgust and disapprobation than the manner in which they had introduced this matter to the house. Α division took place on Mr. Tierney's amendment, ayes, 35, noes, 101. The original clause was then agreed to, and the bill was passed. It met with no opposition in the House of Lords. CHAPTER CHAPTER VI. Motion on the State of the Nation-Marquis of Lansdown's Motion on the Orders in Council-Mr. Banks's Motion for a Bill for abolishing Sinecure Offices. Ο N February 27, Sir Thomas Turton introduced in the House of Commons one of those motions on the state of the nation which are common at the beginning of a session, but have generally no other effect than to give large scope to the members on each side for attack and defence of the measures adopted by government. The honourable baronet in his speech took a very extended view of the state of public affairs, foreign and domestic, both retrospectory and present, from which he inferred much past impolicy in the plans of ministers, and melancholy prospects from persevering in the same system. It is unnecessary here to repeat what has already constituted the narrative of history, or will be more fully shown in the parliamentary proceedings. He concluded by moving, "That this house will resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the state of the nation." He was seconded by Mr. Tighe, who enlarged upon some of the topics introduced by the honourable mover, and said in the conclusion, that if at such a crisis ministers refused the committee, it must be said that they had brought the VOL. LIV. country into such a situation, that they were afraid of looking on the evil, and incapable of supplying a remedy. Mr. Robinson rose to oppose the motion. He said that such an inquiry as the house was now called to enter upon, embraced not only questions which had been the subject of past, but many that were to form that of future discussions, of which he gave instances. He proceeded to justify the war policy pursued by the ministers, and recommended perseverance in the contest. Mr. Lamb,supported the motion, and alluded to the loss the ministry had sustained by the secession of the Marquis of Wellesley, which he considered as rather aggravated by the accession of Lord Castlereagh. Mr. M. Montague, in a speech which seemed to excite much diversion in the house, levelled many sarcasms against the opposition, and alluded personally to the honourable member for Bedford. This notice called up Mr. Whitbread, who retorted by an animated attack upon the administration, and a defence of Lords Grey and Grenville for refusing to coalesce with [E] them. them. The debate thenceforth became nothing more than a contest between the ministers and the oppositionists, in which the political points at issue between them were recapitulated; but although several of the principal speakers took their share in it, there can be no advantage in occupying more of our pages with topics to which so much space has already been devoted. The house at length came to a division, in which there appeared for the motion 136, against it 209, majority 73. The subject of the Orders in Council, which constituted so important a part of the negociations between this country and the United States of America during the last year, appears prominent in the parliamentary discussions of the present year; and although their importance has unfortunately been diminished by the event-for the Americans decided the question by arms, whilst our senates were debating it-they cannot be passed over in a relation of the principal occurrences in parliamentary history. The House of Lords having been summoned on February 28, in consequence of a motion of the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the order of the day being read, the marquis rose to call the attention of their lordships to the Orders in Council, and to the system of policy which had resulted from those orders, so injurious to the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country, and to the welfare of the state. He specified the particular orders which he meant to consider, to be those issued in November 1807, prohibiting the trade to France and the countries dependent upon her, at the same time insisting on American vessels coming first to our ports and paying a tax there; and also to the order of April 1809, partly revoking the former orders, by opening the trade with the north of Europe. He then took a view of the effects of these orders as to their operation on the enemy; their operation on the neutral; their influence on the commerce and internal resources of this country; and their effects on its maritime policy. Under these heads he made a number of observations which are incapable of abridgment, as they all referred to particular facts. One striking remark of a general nature we shall however transcribe. If (said the noble speaker) at the time of the revolution in America, any one could have foreseen that the whole commerce of continental Europe would have fallen under the iron grasp and dominion of France, they would have looked to the establishment of an independent state on the other side of the Atlantic, out of the reach of French power, to become the carrier of our commerce, and purchaser of our manufactures, as the greatest boon that could have been given us. Such an event had occurred as if providentially; yet this great and inestimable advantage had been destroyed by the Orders in Council. His lordship then adverted to the abuses of the system of licences, the number of which had increased from 4000 to 16,000 in the year; and to the system of simulation and dissimulation by which our commerce was now carried on, and which had thrown discredit on the the decisions of our prize courts. Earl Bathurst, in reply, went through with great clearness all the particulars which could be adduced in refutation of the arguments of the noble mover, and endeavoured to prove the great advantages which had arisen from the system adopted by government. He also referred to the origin of this system, which he traced to the administration of which the opposition was now composed. He assigned other causes for the late commercial embarrassments, and affirmed that the clouds were now dissipating, and favourable prospects were opening: whence he could not accede to the proposition submitted to the house. Lord Holland, in replying to the last speaker, thought that it would be an acceptable thing to the house to bring back their attention to the actual motion under consideration, which was, the appointment of a committee of inquiry; and he argued that the more doubt there was, which of the many orders in council had produced the mischiefs complained of, the greater was the necessity of such an inquiry, that it might be repealed. With respect to the topic introduced by the noble earl relative to the original authors of these orders, he said it was disgraceful to the legislature, and disgusting to the people, that measures which affected the best interests of the country should be discussed not upon their own merits, but as questions of consistency or inconsistency on the part of this or that administration. After several other lords had spoken on the subject, the house divided; for the motion 34, proxies 37, total 71; against it 66, proxies 69, total 135; majority 64. On March 3, Mr. Brougham, in the House of Commons, made a similar motion with that of the Marquis of Lansdowne, for the appointment of a committee upon the Orders of Council. Of his long and elaborate speech to prove the impolicy and mischievous effects of these orders, and of the arguments used by the other speakers on both sides, it is impossible in an abstract to give any adequate idea; even on perusing them at length, the mind is distracted by reasoning opposed to reasoning, and fact to fact. The time, however, was not yet come in which the question could be regarded apart from the consideration of the support it was to receive. The ministers were still resolved to maintain their system, and of course, the votes under their influence were given against the motion. It was, however, truly stated by the mover, in his reply, that the votes of this night were to determine the point of peace or war with America. The proportion of members in favour of the proposed inquiry was greater in the House of Commons than in the [£ 2] House |