charge of a public duty; and that public duty undoubtedly compelled him to oppose the allowance. He could not, indeed, but painfully regret, that such a question had been dragged forward, tending, as it did, so deeply to injure the duke in the public estimation, the public every where considering it as prejudicial to their interests and insulting to their understandings. Nothing had been urged by the noble earl that could in any way justify such a grant; and when he considered the only plea that had been brought forward, the expense of the office of custos, he could not but view it as obtaining a grant of 10,000l. a year under a false pretence. The noble earl had endeavoured also to justify the grant on the ground of the same allowance having been given to her late majesty; but to this he would say, that in not opposing that grant to her late majesty, he was guilty of a great oversight; but undoubtedly he considered it as unjustifiable equally with the present proposal, and the very argument itself showed the danger of making a precedent of this nature, which was thus brought forward to justify a measure contrary to justice, and which might be adduced in the same way to sanction other measures of the same tendency. He could not but deeply regret, that such a measure had been at all brought forward. The noble earl might not be acquainted with the effect produced by it in the country, but he could assure him, that that impression was the most unfavourable that any proposition could have given rise to. The Earl of Harrowby was sensible that the subject to which the noble earl had alluded in the latter part of his speech, was one which would best be discussed in the committee. It would then be for their lordships to consider, whether the proposition was hostile to the interests and insulting to the understanding of the public, as the noble earl called it, or one called for by a sense of justice, and of what was due to the dignity of the Crown. According to the principle laid down by the noble lord, it would be necessary for parliament to institute an investigation, in order to see how low the establishment at Windsor could be reduced, if all regard to decorum and dignity were set aside. The noble earl was willing to allow whatever might be necessary for the comfort of the royal sufferer, but nothing more. He trusted their lordships would never pass the bill under the idea that it was limited to such an object. The principle laid down by the noble earl amounted merely to this: that if their lordships provided food, lodging, and medical assistance for his majesty, under his present calamity, they sufficiently discharged their duty. Thus, that rule of provision which would be too narrow for the guidance of a dutiful son or an affectionate relative, was to be thought perfectly well suited to their lordships' feelings in arranging an establishment for the sovereign of this great country They were not then called upon to calculate whether the establishment might be 2,000l. or 3,000l. more or less. He stated no more than fact when he thus spoke; for if once their lordships were to consider that parliament was bound only to provide for the necessary wants, and attend to the personal comforts of the king, knowing, as they did, that nothing more was necessary to be done for the king in this respect than for any private individual, they would lower the respect of the people for the throne, and place the sovereign on a level with the meanest of his subjects. Their lordships should enter on the consideration of this measure, impressed with the idea that they were providing, not for the care and custody of an individual, but for the state and dignity of the sovereign, so far as that state and dignity could be consulted consistently with his majesty's unhappy situation, and the burthened condition of the country; animated with sentiments of regret, that the anticipation of his recovery, which at first made a more splendid establishment necessary, was now no longer entertained; lamenting that the nation could not continue, when that hope had expired, what it supported when that hope existed; and regretting that considerations of economy, and a regard for the distresses of the people, rendered the reductions necessary which had been proposed. Those reductions were most ample; but they did not affect the principle, that the present establishment was proposed for majesty, and ought to be supported as necessary to the dignity of the Crown, and the reverence due to the head of the government of the country. Earl Grey said, that in the whole of his parliamentary life he had never heard any thing more unnecessary, more unwarranted, and more out of place, than the remarks of the noble earl about his loyalty. He had used no expressions which could furnish a pretext for the loyal effusion which their lordships had just heard. He could not pledge his me mory as to the particular words he had used; but, so far as he recollected, he had said, that with every sentiment of reverence for his afflicted sovereign that could be inspired by the virtues of his life or the eminence of his station, he would support any expense that was essential to the maintenance of his dignity. He only protested against that false plea of dignity which was brought to justify an extravagance which the people could ill bear, and to maintain an useless splendor, which contrasted so inharmoniously with the real circumstances of his majesty. The Earl of Harrowby said, he had certainly misapprehended the noble earl; for he had understood him to say, that his consent to the bill would depend solely on the reductions of the royal establishment it contained, and the relief to the country which it administered. The bill was then read a second time. που HOUSE OF COMMONS. ROYAL BURGHS OF SCOTLAND.] Sir James Mackintosh presented a petition from the royal burgh of Dumfries, complaining of the present system of electing magistrates in that burgh. The petition, he took upon himself to say, was signed by its most respectable inhabitants; and, he felt himself bound in justice to add, that the principles on which they prayed for redress, were strictly constitutional, and unmixed with any of those wild and visionary theories which had so much abused the cause of reform. The population of the royal burghs was 480,000. Of these 410,000 had petitioned for a reform in the present system. Of the remaining 70,000, it was to be observed, that though they had not petitioned in favour of such a measure, yet they had not sent up a single petition, or signed a solitary resolution against it, however dependent any part of them might be supposed to be on the will of those who wished to preserve the present system. If ever, therefore, there was a question on which the public voice of those interested in the issue was most unequivocally declared, it was that to which the petition adverted. Mr. Maitland said, that the more this subject was agitated and discussed, the more evident would appear the general opinion of the people of Scotland in favour of a reform, which should put an end to the notorious grievances of which these petitioners complained. Ordered to lie on the table. NEW SOUTH WALES.] Mr. Bennet rose, pursuant to his notice of moving the House to instruct the committee on gaols to take into consideration the state of New South Wales. He was happy to inform the House, that there was no occasion for him to proceed with his motion, as the committee had come to a resolution of turning their attention to the subject without any delay. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.-COMPLAINT RESPECTING THE ARREST OF THOMAS STINTON.] Lord Althorp solicited the attention of the House, whilst he detailed to it a most gross violation of its privileges, which had lately occurred. A soldier of the first regiment of guards, named Stinton, had been summoned to attend and give evidence before the committee on the Worcester election. He had attended, and had been examined on Saturday last. As he was retiring from the room in which the committee sat, and was crossing the lobby of the House, he was arrested by a sergeant of the guards, for a military offence which he had committed; that offence was his absence from parade, in consequence of his attendance at the House of Commons. The committee, on hearing of the circumstance, had not taken any immediate notice of it; because they thought that when the soldier's conduct was explained to his officers, nothing would be done to punish him. Since that time, the man had been tried by a court martial, though sentence had not, he believed, been passed upon him. He thought that such a transaction was well worthy of their consideration: for his own part, he must denounce it as a most flagrant breach of privilege to arrest in the precincts of the House, any witness who was in attendance pursuant to its orders. They ought in all cases to punish with severity any breach of their privileges; but still more so, when the breach was committed by military authority. Colonel Townshend said, that Stinton had not been punished in consequence of his absence from parade; he had behaved ill in many other respects; had endeavoured to escape from the serjeant who had arrested him; and, in consequence, had been brought to a court-martial. What the sentence of that court was he could not say. Sir M. W. Ridley thought that such an outrage ought to be marked by the censure of the House on the individual who had been guilty of it. Mr. Tierney said, that the real question was, whether the soldier had or had not been arrested whilst he was in attendance upon a summons from a committee of the House. Now it appeared that he had been so arrested, and arrested also in the precincts of the House. The serjeant, therefore, who had arrested him, had certainly transgressed against their privileges. Mr. Beckett admitted that the House should take notice of the proceeding, but believed that the offence for which the soldier was tried was wholly of a military nature. Mr. Bennet observed, that as the soldier had been illegally arrested in the first instance, he did not see why he should be punished for an attempted escape from an arrest which, in point of law, was no arrest at all. He also maintained, that, as the arrest was illegal, any punishment inflicted on the soldier, for his endeavour to escape from that arrest, would be highly illegal. For his own part he should wish to see the minutes of the court-martial. Sir C. Monck considered this a violation of a most important privilege. The House was bound to protect its witnesses, and in doing so it only exerted the same power which every court of justice possessed, and when necessary exerted. Sir James Mackintosh asserted, that a more serious breach of privilege could not be committed, especially as it originated from a military officer. If, during the course of a late examination, a party had been committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms, for using threatening language to a witness who had been examined at the bar of that House-a punishment which he, for one, did not think disproportionate to the offence which had rendered it necessary-surely they ought to exercise equal severity towards a military man who had been guilty of so gross an outrage as that upon which they were then debating. He had never before heard such unsatisfactory and extraordinary arguments as those which the judge advocate had just advanced; he had heard them with surprise not unmingled with indignation. The learned gentleman had intimated, that an ignorance of the privileges of the House was to be considered (VOL. XXXIX.) as a sufficient excuse for the breach of them. Ignorance might, indeed, be pleaded in extenuation, when the offending party was brought to the bar; but could not, and ought not to be considered as an excuse for his conduct. If they admitted such a justification at the present time, they might as well extend it to all invasions which the military officers of the crown might hereafter think it convenient to make upon their rights and privileges. He certainly thought that the serjeant ought to be brought to the bar of the Honse, and that his conduct ought to be investigated closely. One breach of privilege had been committed in the arrest of the soldier, under the circumstances which had been described to them; another had also been committed in bringing the subsequent charge of an attempted escape against him, before a court-martial. The escape, or rather the pretended escape, was a part of Stinton's conduct, which the circumstances under which he had been arrested rendered perfectly justifiable. To whatever other resolutions the House might come, he thought that they could not rest satisfied without a copy at least of the charge preferred against Stinton being submitted to their notice. Mr. Beckett said, that the learned gentleman was wholly mistaken in supposing that he had extenuated the conduct of the serjeant, on the ground of his ignorance of the privileges of that House. As to the court martial, he understood it was solicited by the soldier. Mr. Bennet said, it was probable the soldier solicited the court martial, because he would have been flogged without it. Lord Althorp then moved, That the Serjeant of the first regiment of Foot Guards, who arrested Thomas Stinton on Saturday last, be ordered to attend the House on Tuesday next. Mr. Wynn thought it highly objectionable to adjourn such a question to so distant a period. Important as the business was which was at that time to come under discussion, it could not be more important than that which they were then discussing. Rather than such an adjourn ment should take place, he should prefer that the House should meet and specially consider the matter to-morrow. For his own part, he thought that the House ought not to separate without coming to a decision on the question forthwith. In the last parliament, when a witness had (4 F) been arrested within the precincts of the House in a civil case, they had come to a decision forthwith: the reason's which led them to form such a determination in a civil case, ought to actuate them still more strongly in a military one. After some further conversation, the serjeant, and also Thomas Stinton were ordered to attend the House forthwith. Shortly after, the serjeant was called in and examined. He stated, that his name was John Hardy, and that he belonged to the 1st regiment of guards. He admitted that on Saturday last he had come in search of Thomas Stinton, and found him in the lobby of the House of Commons. He was taking him to his quarters when the said Stinton ran away from him. In a quarter of an hour, however, he regained possession of his prisoner, and took him before the orderly officer. In all he had done, he had acted by the orders of serjeant-major Sutton, and on the ground that Stinton had absented himself from the defaulter's drill, at ten in the morning. Stinton had since been tried by a court-martial on the charge of having absented himself, disobeyed orders, effected his escape, and made away with a piece of cloth belonging to the witness. He had no knowledge that Stinton had received a summons to attend an election committee; neither did he know that it was a breach of privilege to seize him in the lobby of the House. He had only thought of obeying his orders. The defaulter's drill took place at nine in the morning, and lasted at least one hour, and when Stinton was seized he account ed for his absence by saying, that he must attend the House of Commons by half-past eight in the morning. He ought, however, to have reported his having received a summons before he absented himself, but had not done it either to the witness, or to any of his officers. His excuse was, that his absence had been occasioned by his attendance on the House of Commons.-The witness then withdrew. Lord Althorp expressed his opinion, that there was now evidence before the House, to show that Stinton had been brought to a court-martial, amongst other things, upon a charge of being absent from drill, that absence having been caused by his attendance on a committee of the House. The statement of these circumstances clearly indicated a case of a breach of privilege, and rendered it necessary that the minutes of the courtmartial should be laid before them. Lord Palmerston observed, that one reason why the man had been brought to a court-martial was, that he had refused to answer any question put to him by his superior officers, and had actually invited them to bring him before one. Thomas Sutton was then examined. He stated, that he was serjeant-major to the 1st regiment of guards, and that hearing Stinton had been missing at the defaulter's drill, he had ordered serjeant Hardy to secure him. He afterwards learnt about two oclock that it had been done, and as he found that Stinton's absence had been occasioned by his attendance on the House of Commons, he had directed serjeant Hardy only to confine him to the barracks. Stinton having subsequently made his escape and been retaken was confined till Monday, and then arraigned for breach of duty. He told the adjutant, who reasoned with him on the subject, that the charge was false, and that he would not answer the questions of any one, unless he were brought before a court martial. He behaved with the same impropriety to the commanding officer. He was then brought before a court-martial, and found guilty of two of the charges laid against him, but, in consequence of his pleading that he had been summoned to attend the House of Commons, the court had pardoned him and no punishment had been inflicted upon him. On the Friday previous to his absence, he had stated to the witness that he had received a summons to attend the House of Commons, upon which the witness told him that he must inform him whether his attendance would interfere with his military duty, which he never did. The witness did not know that Stinton had been called before a committee of the House of Commons, except from the report given him by serjeant Hardy. He then withdrew. Lord Althorp was happy to find that no breach of privilege had been committed. He considered it, however, desirable that the subject should be prosecuted to an end; and in order that it might be fully recorded in their Journals, he would move that the minutes of the court-martial should be produced. Mr. Beckett conceived such a proceeding to be unusual, except in the case of some distinct ground being laid for it. They were all agreed, he had no doubt, that the serjeants deserved praise rather than censure for their conduct; neither was there any evidence that the soldier had been tried upon any charge connected with this transaction. Mr. Tierney said, that this was the question which was not distinctly made out by the evidence of the serjeants. It was also matter of doubt, whether the court-martial had been suffered to go on with a knowledge of the facts, or whether the facts only transpired at its conclusion. Mr. Wynn thought it appeared by the evidence that the man had been ordered into confinement by his officer, after the latter had been informed of the cause of his absence. This was in itself a breach of privilege, and the court-martial could scarcely have been ignorant of the circumstances. It was desirable, therefore, that the hon. officer should inform the House, what had been the immediate cause of bringing the man to a court martial. Colonel Townshend stated the circumstances under which he had become acquainted with the nature of the present case, upon the man's first confinement. He had conferred with one or two members of the committee on the subject; but finding that the man had broken away from the serjeant, and had in other respects misconducted himself, he directed that he should be proceeded with in the usual way. After some further conversation, the motion was agreed to. ELECTION OATHS BILL.] Mr. William Williams, pursuant to notice, moved for leave to bring in a bill to impose an oath on persons voting in right of small freeholds and to prevent fraudulent convey ances of such freeholds; and also to amend the 25th Geo. 3rd, c. 84, relative to the oath of qualification. His object in bringing in this bill was not to alter in any respect the law of the land; he merely wished, that whoever claimed a right to vote, should bona fide possess that right. Leave was given to bring in the bill. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, March 29. CONSOLIDATED FUND PRODUCE BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of the bill for rendering the growing produce of the consolidated fund available for the public service, § This The Marquis of Lansdowne said, that the bill should have his warmest support; for nothing could be more just and proper than its provisions, so far as they went. He must, however, call their lordships attention to the principle on which it was founded, and the very limited extent to which that principle was carried. The principle of the bill went to carry into effect, to a certain extent, a measure which was but common justice towards the public, which had long been called for by the state of the finances, and which an individual of the other House (Mr. Grenfell) had, in a manner highly honourable to himself, made repeated endeavours to obtain for the country. He alluded to the efforts which had been made to procure for the public a participation in the advantages arising from the balances left in the possession of the Bank. Of that profit which the Bank ought to derive from its money transactions, in the fair course of trade, no man would wish it to be deprived; but, after the fair profit. should be secured, it was but right that the public should share in the advantage arising from balances left in the Bank, and which of late years had frequently accumulated to a great amount. bill, therefore, in this respect, was most just in principle, but at the same time extremely defective in its provisions, since it confined the application of the principle to one description of balances, namely, to balances on the growing produce of the consolidated fund, arising on money received at the receipt of the exchequer at the Bank. Why was not this principle carried to a greater extent? Why was it not applied to the balances of the customs and excise, of which at least 3,000,000l. might be made available each quarter in the same manner, and to which the public was no less fairly entitled than to that granted by the present bill? It had been boasted that the arrangement contemplated by this bill would produce a saving of interest on balances to the amount of 6,000,000l.; whereas the fact was, that the average of these balances taken throughout the year did not exceed 4,000,000l. Besides, the advantage, to whatever extent it might arise, could only be enjoyed by the public for a small part of the year; for it was provided, that the bills made out under the act of the 57th of the king, commonly called deficiency bills, should be discharged before this measure could operate. To this object the ba |