Tierney rose to state his objections. He could not easily comprehend why the present act was to take place immediately, when the former was not 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. gentleman, 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.

A 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

ON

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 retrospective 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.

them. The debate thenceforth be came 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 4,000 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. He finally contended, that every plea on which the Orders of Council had been founded was proved erroneous by the experience of four years; and he concluded by moving "For the appointment of a select committee to take into consideration the present state of the commerce and manufactures of the country, particularly with reference to the effects of the Orders in Council, and the licence trade."

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 mea sures 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 [E 2]

House

House of Lords. On the division, there appeared, for Mr. Brougham's motion 144, against it 216; majority 72.

The bill which had been carried respecting offices in reversion, though laudableinits principle, was evidently incapable of doing much towards the relief of the national burdens; its author, therefore, Mr. Bankes, with a view of striking a more effectual blow against the waste of public money, rose in the House of Commons on March 24, and moved the reading of the three first resolutions of the committee relative to public expenditure in May 1810. Their substance was to recommend the abolition of all offices which have revenue without employment, and the regulation of those which have revenue extremely disproportionate to employment (with the exception of those about the person of his Majesty and the royal family), and to reduce all effective offices, the duties of which are discharged by deputy, to the salary and emoluments actually received for executing the business of those offices. These resolutions being read, the honourable member said, that there was nothing to which the country looked with more pleasure than to the salutary principles of regulation which ought to be applied to sinecure offices. He guarded, however, against the indulgence of too high expectations of relief from the burdens incurred during war from such a measure, or, indeed, of any immediate economical effect of the motion he neant to propose; but if the principle were once established, it could not fail of a sure though

slow effect. After some further observations, he concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for abolishing and regulating sinecures and offices executed by deputy, and for providing other means for recompensing the faithful discharge of high or effective civil offices, and for other economical purposes."

Leave was accordingly given; and Mr. Bankes, Mr. Wilberforce, and Mr. I. W. Ward, were ordered to prepare the same.

The bill thus framed did not come to a discussion till May 4, when, upon the order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the bill, Mr. W. Dundas rose, and objected to it as violating the articles of union with Scotland. He said, that the people of Scotland had stipulated at the union. that their chief offices of state should be preserved, and he asked upon what ground it was that the very first offices of that country, in defiance of solemn treaty and national faith, were to be abolished?

The Lord Advocate of Scotland followed on the same side. He instanced particularly as an infringement of a stipulated right, the abolition of the office of keeper of the great seal of Scotland. The fact being denied by Mr. Bankes, he said the bill abolished the emolument of the office; and what remained of the office after the emolument? This was what induced responsible persons to undertake it; and the want of responsibility was what he attributed to the enactments of this bill. It gave up a place of high trust to obscure individuals who should act as de

puties,