1065] tach, as it were, a dead carcass to a living Junior Lords of the Admiralty. had quite misunderstood the real grounds on which the present reduction was opposed. He must say, that the grounds on which the hon. gentleman had declared he should vote against the present motion, were not only untenable in themselves, but were also totally inconsistent with those which had been already stated to the House by ministers themselves. The real grounds were what had been stated by them, and re-stated by his hon. friend, namely, that it was necessary to have certain offices of the description of those now proposed to be reduced, for the education of young men who devoted themselves to politics. It was with no little astonishment, therefore, that he heard the gallant admiral opposite urge the increased business of the Admiralty as the ground for retaining these offices. The gallant admiral had stated that applications were now made to the board of Admiralty from officers in all parts of the world-that they had submitted to them not only plans respecting improvements in the structure and management of ships, but communications even respecting the science of astronomy. If so much knowledge was necessary for the office of lay commissioner of the board of Admiralty, he would put it to the gallant admiral, whether the noble lord who lately went out of office, and another hon. gentleman who now filled the office, among their other qualifications, were able to settle these difficult and disputed points in ship-building and astronomy? But the gallant admiral did not stop here-these lay lords must in giving orders for the protection of British commerce, take special care that these orders be not inconsistent with the rights of nations-that is, they must not only possess all the sciences, but in addition be learned in the civil law must have their Grotius and Puffendorff by heart. There was another reason urged by the gallant admiral, which might be an excellent sea reason perhaps; though Acperfectly incomprehensible to him. cording to the gallant admiral, they could not send two professional men any where without their disagreeing. This was certainly singular, that a knowledge of any subject was sure to produce a difference of opinion among those who possessed that knowledge-but the remedy of the gallant admiral was still more singular. It was, to send to the out-ports along with the professional lords another lord, who was quite ignorant of the subject to at Mr. Long Wellesley said, that there were certain great political principles which ought to regulate the opinions of every public man. His hon. friend opposite had appealed to one of those principles in saying that he would vote for the present mo gave tion, because the influence of the Crown | was increasing. He differed from his hon. friend on this point. He was as fully impressed as any man with the necessity of economy; but he thought that there were offices, among which this was one, that influence and power, which were necessary in conducting the government, into whatever hands it fell; whether into the hands of his hon. friends about him, or into those of the hon. gentlemen on the other side. In maintaining such places, he did not think that the influence of the Crown was dangerously high, and he would by no means consent to diminish it. He meant no disrespect, but if he were asked to say what he thought of the conduct of the gentlemen of the opposition on this occasion, he would declare, that, looking at the question fairly and dispassionately, he could only come to this conclusion, that they really were sacrificing their public duty at the shrine of popularity. The House divided: Ayes, 164. Noes, 245. Majority against the motion, 81. Howorth, H. O'Callaghan, James Osborne, lord F. Palmer, col. Palmer, C. F. Pares, Thomas Parnell, W. Price, Robert Pryse, Pryse Ricardo, D. Rancliffe, lord Robarts, W. T. Robarts, A. Rowley, sir W. Sefton, earl of Smyth, J. H. Symonds, T. P. Smith, Sam. Tierney, right hon. G. Walpole, hon. G. Waithman, alderman Webb, Ed. Western, C. C. Whitbread, Wm. Wilkins, W. Williams, Owen. TELLERS. Calcraft, John Ridley, sir M. W. Brougham, Henry Deerhurst, lord Davenport, Davies Ellice, Edward Euston, earl of Fazakerley, N. Fergusson, sir R. C. Fitzgerald, lord W. Fleming, D. Pierse, H. Philips, George Philips, G. R. Piggott, sir A. Power, Richard Phillipps, C. March. Powlett, hon. W. Maitland, Mr. Proby, hon. capt. Birch, Jos. Brand, hon. T. Browne, D. Burroughs, sir W. Byng, G. Foley, T. Buxton, T. F. Folkestone, lord. Burton, R. C. Frankland, R. Bankes, H. Forbes, C. Bastard, E. P. Burrell, sir C. Calvert, C. Calvert, N. Carew, R. S. Cavendish H. Graham, J. R. G. 'Grattan, H. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 19. EXCISE PROSECUTIONS.-PETITION OF WILLIAM WEAVER.] Mr. Alderman Waithman presented a petition from William Weaver, complaining of his imprisonment under a prosecution by the commissioners of excise. The worthy alderman expressed his sorrow that the attorneygeneral had not acceded to the motion which had been made for an inquiry into Exchequer processes; and gave notice that he should himself bring forward some motion upon the expenses incurred in the conducting of such processes.-The petition was then read, setting forth, "That the petitioner is a prisoner confined in the debtors' prison for London and Middlesex, and has been since the 2nd of December last, under prosecution of the commissioners of excise for alleged penalties to the amount of 44,450l. upon information that he had been guilty of selling three chests of Spanish juice at the value of about 36l., to a brewer, contrary to the laws of his majesty's excise; that the petitioner most humbly begs leave, in support of his claim to the attention of the House, to state, that he has never, to his knowledge, committed any breach of his majesty's excise laws, according to the just and equitable construction by which those laws were intended and are professed to be administered, but that he has been most cruelly, and (he humbly submits it to the House) most unlawfully prosecuted, without any consideration of the total ruin and destruction of his business and family, in consequence, and upon the oath and information of a common informer, to whom the petitioner has publicly, in the regular course of his trade, sold an unexciseable article; that the petitioner humbly states to the House, that he has carried on the business of a grocer in Charles-street and Cable-street, Saint George's, for upwards of ten years past, and dealt in the article of Spanish juice; that in the year 1815 the petitioner sold to messieurs Stewart and Ward, of Old Gravel lane, bottled porter dealers (one of whom is the informer in this case), four chests of Spanish juice, of the value of 40%., which were at that time seized by the officers of excise in their possession, under some pretence of which the petitioner is uninformed, but, on application, and the report of the surveyor general of excise, were afterwards restored, and consequently the petitioner did not consider himself, as a tradesman, required to doubt the propriety or legality of his selling that article to the said persons; that the petitioner, in the month of February, 1816, sold to the said Ward three other chests of Spanish juice, at the regular credit in the trade, two months, at the expiration of which the petitioner became pressing for payment thereof, and was then informed by the said Ward, that a Mr. Gray, of West Ham, owed him a considerable sum of money, and if the petitioner would accompany him to the counting-house of Mr. Gray, he would then pay him his de mand, to which the petitioner consented; that, in the space of about twelve months afterwards, the petitioner was served with Exchequer process, at the prosecution of the excise, grounded upon the oath and information of the before-named Ward (who proved to be a common informer), for penalties to the amount of 44,4501., or thereabouts; but, upon investigation and trial, the only circumstance in proof against the petitioner was, that he had received payment for the aforesaid three chests of Spanish juice of Ward in the counting-house of Mr. Gray, who is a brewer at West Ham; whereupon, before the case went to the jury, the petitioner was induced, by the urgent advice of his friends, to agree to a compromise of 2001.; and, in consequence of his appeal to the attorney-general, stating his total inability to pay the said amount, he was pleased to state to the petitioner that the most favourable consideration of his case would hereafter be observed; and the petitioner humbly trusted that, under the circumstances of his case, his majesty's government would not have proceeded to enforce the said penalty; that the petitioner farther showeth to the House, that his property and effects were suddenly, and without any farther previous notice or demand, seized in execution, and sold by auction at the suit of the Crown for this penalty, which produced the sum of 814.; and that a part of the property so sold, namely, the fixtures and household furniture, were purchased by the petitioner's landlord, who compassionately lent the same for the use of the petitioner's family, who was thereby enabled, and by the help of other friends, to continue to carry on a small trade, towards the support of his numerous family, consisting of a wife and seven children; but in a short time afterwards, and without any farther notice or demand on the petitioner, the execution was again levied upon his premises, and the same fixtures and furniture which had been purchased by the landlord under the former sale (and remained his property), but humanely left on the premises for the petitioner's use, together with such small stock of goods as his credit had enabled him to possess, were again, in despite of petition and remonstrance, sold by auction for 521. besides 137. 1s. in money, which was taken out of the petitioner's cash-box by one Fitchew, the officer of excise, still leaving 531. 19s. unsatisfied, by which the petitioner's wife and family became desti tute of house or home, except for the mercy of the surrounding neighbours, and himself was at the same time inhumanly dragged to that prison at the same suit, and now remains charged in execution for the before-mentioned penalty of 44,450., or thereabouts; that, previous to the last sale of the property found on the petitioner's premises, an offer was made on his behalf of 40l. to the board of treasury in lieu thereof, and to prevent the farther disastrous consequences of another sale under such circumstances; this offer was refused, and a demand made of 604., which the pe. titioner not being able to comply with, the sale immediately took place; that, in answer to the petitioner's numerous applications and entreaties for mercy, and to be restored to his destitute family, he is informed, through the medium of Mr. Carr, the solicitor to the excise, that the matter is left to the discretion of one Fitchew, who managed the execution, and took from the petitioner all the money he possessed, and that on the petitioner's acceding to his terms he may be released from imprisonment; the petitioner therefore most humbly prays the House, that he may be at liberty to prove the statements of his petition, in such manner as the House may in its wisdom be pleased to order; and, with the conviction that the House will fully appreciate his unfortunate situation, he humbly submits the premises to the consideration of the House, to adopt such measures as to their wisdom may seem meet." The Petition was ordered to lie on the table; after which, Mr. Alderman Waithman gave notice of his motion for Tuesday next. COAL DUTIES.] Several petitions respecting the proposed alteration in the Coal Duties having been presented, Lord Folkestone observed, that such a ferment had been excited throughout the country, in consequence of an expected alteration in the coal-duties, that it had become the duty of ministers to declare their intentions on the subject openly and specifically, in order to allay the anxiety which had been created. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he had expressed himself as explicitly as he could upon this subject on a former occasion. He would, however, repeat what he had then said, in order that no future mistake might arise. He thought that it would be neither expedient, nor wise, nor beneficial in any point of view whatsoever, to make any alteration in the present duties. ROYAL HOUSEHOLD BILL.] On the motion of lord Castlereagh, the order for the further consideration of the report upon the Royal Household Bill was read. The amendments were agreed to, and on the motion that the bill be engrossed, Lord Folkestone rose, he said, not to animadvert upon any of the amendments which had just been adopted, but to take that opportunity of stating his opinion upon the clause in the bill, which related to the grant of 10,000l. a year to the duke of York. It was impossible, according to his impression, consistently to accede to this clause in the terms in which it stood at present; for this clause assumed that the same sum was allowed to her late majesty as a remuneration for the expenses to which she was liable, on her appointment to the care of the king's person, and that therefore the duke of York was entitled to the same allowance upon undertaking the same appointment. This assumption the noble lord maintained to be quite a fallacy, as must be evident to any one who would take the trouble of reading the last act upon this subject, or who recollected the debates on its progress through parliament. For the grant of 10,000l. a year to her majesty, was not made in consequence of any expense which she incurred through her care of the king's person, but to defray the expense of travelling, to which she became liable, and for occasionally keeping a court at Buckingham-house, such expense having been liquidated from the funds of his majesty previous to his indisposition. was the ground upon which the grant was made, as he distinctly recollected, and what he had lately read of the observations of Mr. Perceval on the discussion of the act to which he had referred, was confirmatory of his recollection upon the subject. Hence he concluded that the annuity of 10,000l. was not made to the queen for the care of the king's person, as had been lately assumed; consequently to state that this sum should be granted to the duke of York, upon the same ground that it was allowed to her majesty, implied a direct falsehood. He was therefore decidedly of opinion that such a clause ought not to be acceded to in the terms in which it stood at present. t That تو would indeed be unbecoming the character of the House to adopt such a clause, because it was inconsistent with the truth. Upon what ground, then, could this grant be justified? It could not be pretended that the duke of York, through his appointment of custos regis, would have to incur more expense than that of paying for four horses to travel once a week to Windsor; and would it be maintained that the sum of 10,000l. a year was necessary for such a purpose? [Hear! hear!] With respect to the argument, that a son should receive 10,000l. a year for taking care of a father, in the melancholy situation of the king, he could not help thinking it quite disgraceful to those who condescended to use it. He had now to state that in which probably but few would agree with him. He was not of opinion that the duke of York was a proper person, much less, as had been alleged, the most proper person that could be chosen, for the care of the king's person; for, under the unfortunate circumstances in which his majesty was placed, the person appointed to such an office ought to be constantly resident at Windsor. But he remembered that this was an argument used by ministers, on the discussion of the last act for committing the care of his majesty's person to the queen, and that circumstance was universally deemed an additional reason for her majesty's appointment. On this ground then, he contended, that the care of his majesty's person should rather be confided to some one who might reside at Windsor, which the duke of York could not possibly do, from the nature of his official engagements in town. But there were two of the princesses continually resident in the immediate vicinity of Windsor, and for that reason he should prefer the appointment of their royal highnesses for the care of his majesty's person. With that arrangement, it might be proper to appoint the duke of York as head of the council; but whether his royal highness were appointed head of the council or custos regis, it could never be patiently argued that he was entitled to an allowance of 10,000l. a year to liquidate any expenses which he might be really called upon to incur. At all events, he felt that the House should not adopt a clause which contained a palpable falsehood, and upon that ground he should move that this clause be expunged. The Speaker stated, that the question (VOL. XXXIX.) to be put was, "That the said clause stand part of the bill." The hon. Mr. Lyttelton observed, that the reception which the remarks of his noble friend had met with, and the little attention which ministers seemed disposed to show them, held out but a slendere ncouragement to him to address the House upon this occasion. But still he felt it his duty to say, that if the grant alluded to was made, it would be quite scandalous to vote that grant upon false pretences. To the grant itself he had strong objections, but he urged those objections with great pain, for although the case was stated to relate merely to the grant of a certain allowance to a public officer, it was still, in many respects a personal question, and upon such a question, every man must feel it painful to state an objection, especially where a member of the royal family was adverted to. But it was among the serious faults of the present administration, to make the members of the royal family the subject of discussion in that House, as well as out of doors, with respect to pecuniary questions. The conduct of those ministers during the last session, could not soon be forgotten, when they pressed such propositions as served to render that House popular, by opposing pecuniary grants to several members of the royal family, and such conduct could not easily be forgiven by the real friends of that illustrious family. But the duke of York, who was spared on that occasion, and whose character stood high in the country, notwithstanding a certain event, to which he did not mean particularly to advert, was in the present instance dragged forward by those ministers in a most exceptionable manner; for what could be more exceptionable than to propose a pecuniary grant to his royal highness upon false pretences. But nothing was more remarkable than the sophistries adduced in support of this grant. It was argued that it was essential to the maintenance of the dignity of the duke of York to annex 10,000l. a year to the office which he had undertaken; but, in the view of every unbiassed man in the country, it would be much more consistent with the maintenance of the dignity of his royal highness to accept that office without any salary whatever. But it was alleged that the grant under consideration was necessary to defray the expense incident to the performance of an important public duty. Where, however, (3 Z) |