O'Brien, sir E. Ogle, H. M. Osborne, sir J. On sir Robert Wilson's fifth Resolution | Croker, J. W. being put, Mr. B. Wilbraham proposed an amendment, by leaving out from the first word "That" to the words " but that," in order to insert," the said Wyndham Wyndham Quin did, in a certain conversation held at Stillorgan, near Dublin, on the 21st September 1818, with Mr. Carew Smyth, who then and there waited on him, as the friend of Mr. Thos. William Grady, for the purpose of learning his determination touching the dispo sal of the said office, state that he had resolved to appoint Mr. Richard Smith to the said office during pleasure, upon an express understanding that Mr. Thomas William Grady was to receive 200l. per annum out of the profits thereof; and that the said Wyndham Wyndham Quin further stated, that he expected Mr. Thomas William Grady would continue politically connected with him in the county of Limerick as long as he continued to receive the said sum out of the said office; but that Mr. Thomas William Grady was at perfect liberty to relinquish the said annuity, and separate his political interest in the county of Limerick from Mr. Quin's; and that Mr. Carew Smyth stated, that he should immediately communicate the substance of the said conversation to Thomas William Grady," instead thereof. The question being put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes 81. The main question was then put, and agreed to. Paget, hon. E. Paget, hon. C. Palmerston, visc. Crawford, A. J. Peel, right hon. R. Plunkett, rt. hon. W. Robinson, rt. hon. F. Grattan, right hon. H. Rochfort, G. Scott, hon. W. Shaw, R. Shiffner, sir G. Smith, T. A. Shepherd, sir S. Sotheron, F. Staunton, sir G.. Stewart, Alex. Stirling, sir W. Stirling, sir W. Tennyson, C. Tomline, E. Titchfield, marq. of Walker, S. Wallace, rt. hon. T. Ward, R. Warrender, sir G. Westenra, hon. H. Whitmore, T. Wilmot, R. Wildman, J. B. Macqueen, T. P. Marjoribanks, sir J. Wilson, T. Martin, R. Moore, Peter Newport, sir J. Nugent, lord Osborne, lord F. Palmer, C. F. Parnell, W. Philips, G. R. Proby, hon. capt. Ricardo, D. Rickford, W. Ramsden, J. C. Ridley, sir M. W. Robarts, A. Robarts, W. T. Russell, lord G. Russell, R. G. Sefton, earl of Smith, John Smith, hon. R. Smyth, J. H. Stewart, W. Thorp, alderman Tierney, right hon. G. Walpole, hon. G. Waithian, alderman Webb, Ed. Wilkins, W. Williams, W. Wood, alderman TELLERS. Douglas, hon. F. G. Wilson, sir R. Mr. B. Wilbraham next moved, "That this House cannot but consider the expression, or admission of any such expectation as improper and blameable; and had an intention of acting thereon been persisted in, instead of being (as it appears to have been) speedily and unequivocally disavowed, this House would have deemed it necessary to visit such a proceeding with its severest censure."An amendment was proposed to be made to the question, by leaving out the words "improper and blameable," in order to insert the words " highly censurable," instead thereof. The question, That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question, being put, was agreed to.-Sir R. Wilson then proposed an amendment to be made to the question, by leaving out all the words from the words "blameable, and" in order to add the words, "That it appears to this House, that the said Wyndham Wyndham Quin, in endeavouring to procure for himself the political support of Thomas William Grady, did act in a manner inconsistent with the duties of his office as Custos Rotulorum, in violation of the freedom of election, and in breach of the privileges of this House;"-The question being put, was agreed to. After which, the main question was also put and agreed to. MOTION RESPECTING MR. GOOLD.] Mr. Lambton then moved, "That Thomas Goold, esq. having prevaricated in the evidence given by him at the bar of this House, be for his said offence committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House." Mr. Brougham observed, that as Mr. Goold was not a principal in this transaction, the House could not punish him without an inquiry into his conduct. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his motion. Mr. Plunkett denied that Mr. Goold had been guilty of prevarication. He was surprised that any person could thus plant a dagger in the bosom of a respectable individual, by gratuitously proposing a measure which would only have the effect of for ever destroying his peace of mind. He trusted that the hon. gentleman when he made such a motion, was not aware of the extent of the evil which he was doingan irreparable evil, and to a person bearing such a character as that which had been given him by the father of his country. He had felt absolutely electrified with astonishment, when this motion was brought forward, and he believed the hon. gentleman was the only member in the House who would have adopted such a course. Mr. Lambton said, that, notwithstanding the tender regard which was entertained for Mr. Goold's character, the right hon. gentleman had suffered the evidence of Mr. C. Smyth to be impugned without any ceremony [Cries of No, no!]. The gentlemen said no, but he said yes. He believed on his conscience that Mr. Goold's evidence was prevaricative, and he had brought forward this motion from a sense of duty, and a desire to protect the privileges of the House. Mr. Stuart Wortley denied that there had been any prevarication in Mr. Goold's evidence: he had distinctly denied the facts stated by Mr. C. Smyth, but had afterwards openly and manfully declared his conviction, that Mr. Smyth was correct. Surely the hon. gentleman did not know the meaning of the word prevaricate; for if Mr. Goold was guilty at all, he was guilty of giving false evidence, and not of giving prevarication. He agreed with the learned gentleman in thinking, or at least in hoping that there was not another member of that House who would have proposed such a motion. Mr. Brougham rose to order. The hon. gentleman surely was not aware that such language implied that the person to whom it had been used had been guilty of some offence. Mr. S. Wortley had no doubt that the only motive of Mr. Lambton was a sense of duty. Mr. Brougham dwelt on the impropriety of blending the merits of the question with the conduct of the witnesses, and of stamping a censure on one witness, on account of his evidence being at variance with that of another. Mr. Plunkett, in explanation, said, that if in the heat of argument upon a subject on which he was most ardent, he had said any thing to give offence, it was more than he had intended. In the observations he had made, nothing was farther from his intention than the wish to give offence to the hon. member. Mr. Abercromby did not approve of the manner in which the evidence of Mr. Goold was given, but thought that, if a question were started upon it, it could not be one for prevarication, but for stating that which he knew not to be true. After the evidence had been given, it should not be so much the question, whether the witness had prevaricated, as whether he had stated that which he believed to be true or not. Without, therefore, giving his opinion upon the merits of the question before the House, which he thought ought to be postponed to another opportunity, he should give his vote against the motion. Mr. Croker bore testimony to the excellent character of Mr. Goold, a gentleman whom he had known for a great many years. He trusted the House would come to an immediate decision on this question, for he thought that no acquittal, however unanimous, would compensate Mr. Goold, for having this dreadful Scourge hung over his head for a single day longer. ROYAL HOUSEHOLD BILL.] The Earl of Liverpool moved the order of the day for committing the bill for the regulation of his majesty's household, &c., and the House immediately went into the committee. On the motion for reading the preamble of the bill, Earl Grey rose. Having already said that it was not his intention to make any opposition to the principle of the measure, it might be expected that he would reserve himself for another part of the bill; but, notwithstanding his approval of the principle, he had some general observations to offer, which appeared to him more particularly applicable to the present stage of the committee. After the misinterpretation that had taken place of what passed on a former occasion, it might however be necessary, before he proceeded farther, to guard himself against any misunderstanding of his views. Far from being disposed to leave out of consideration the just claims of individuals for past services, or to look with cold indifference on the unfortunate situation of the sovereign, he fully recognized all Lord Nugent expressed the sincere re- those claims, and he felt as strongly as gret and pain which he felt in being ob- any one could feel, that sympathy for sufliged, after all he had heard from so many fering, and that sense of propriety and high authorities on both sides of the duty which ought to regulate their lordHouse, and perhaps from the highest au- ships in making a provision, not merely thority in the House, in favour of the for an afflicted individual, but for him character of Mr. Goold, to be obliged, in who had been, and, as the noble earl op. the discharge of his duty, to vote for a posite the other day justly obsesved, still motion which must necessarily cast an was the legal sovereign of a great, geneimputation upon a character hitherto re-rous, and loyal people. Upon this prinspectable. But after having read and considered the evidence which Mr. Goold had given, he did not think that such evi ciple he looked at the present measure; but there was another principle, in maintaining which he could not be considered as acting inconsistently with the declara- statement, he heard it with great surprise tion of the former; namely, that he felt a surprise in which many other noble lords himself equally bound to take care that doubtless participated; for it was the asno unnecessary expense, however minute, sumption of a perfectly new ground. was incurred on the part of the public. This question, their lordships well knew, For his support in the justice of this view, was not now for the first time pressed on he had only to look at the preamble of their consideration. He and two of his the bill now before their lordships. That noble friends had last year agitated it, preamble, in stating the object of the and then it was vehemently resisted, not. bill, not only professed to provide for the only by the noble lord opposite, but by attendance suitable and requisite to the several others. One noble lord who maindue care of his majesty's sacred person, tained that every man in the country from and the maintenance of his royal dignity, John O'Groat's house to the Land's End, but at the same time to make such reduc- would oppose the diminution of a particle tions in the expense of the establishment of splendor from around the king, had as might not be found inconsistent with indignantly exclaimed, "Shall I consent that principle on which the bill was found- to strip my sovereign of the allowance ed. This, which was the principle of the made for him in his affliction ?" “What,” bill, he also maintained, and should con- said another, "shall I, who have been tinue to maintain, notwithstanding the in-protected by my sovereign in his prospedignant observations he had a few days ago drawn upon himself; but perhaps those expressions of irritability were not so much directed towards him as they were effusions of spleen against the bill itself, the authors and professed supporters of which now found themselves compelled to make some reductions in an establishment which they had formerly declared could undergo no alteration. This much he had found himself bound to say in order to avoid further misconstruction; but before he proceeded to notice the details of the bills, to all of which, with one or perhaps rather two exceptions, he was prepared to concur, he could not help adverting to the grounds upon which the noble earl who moved the bill, had called upon their lordships to support it. The noble carl had stated, and the bill indeed declared, that "the death of her late most excellent majesty would allow some reduction in the expense of the establishment provided for his majesty." This power of reducing the expense the noble earl attributed to the situation in which her majesty stood as queen-consort. The establishment, he said, having been made with a view to that consideration, if it had not been formed according to the arrangement which subsisted until her majesty's death, she would have had an equitable claim to the enjoyment of her dower. It appeared, then, according to the noble earl's explanation, that the establishment at Windsor had been founded on the double principle of providing for the care of the king, and of supplying what her majesty was entitled to as queen-conWhen the noble earl made that sort. rity, abandon him in his adversity?" He gave those noble lords, one of whom he now saw on the cross bench, full credit for the sincerity of the warm effusions of loyalty to which they had given utterance, and he had no doubt that they now had good grounds for their change of opinion. But if the noble earl had at that time turned round to them, and said, "the reason which you have given has nothing to do with the principle of the bill. This expense is not incurred for the king only, but for the queen; one-half being given to her majesty, as queen-consort, in lieu of her dower.' Had such an answer been given, what would have been the surprise, what the feelings of the noble lords? But no such answer was given; and the establishment was all along professed to be maintained for the king, and the king only. Was it probable, then, that such had been the view of those who proposed the original bill, or of the legislature who passed it? Did the Journals of parliament, or any of the acts which had been adopted, afford any trace of such a principle? On the contrary, the act of the 52nd of the king stated in the preamble, as the ground of passing it, the necessity of making further regulations for the maintenance of his majesty's household, and to enable the queen to meet the additional expenses to which she might be exposed for that object. The sum of 100,000. was then directed to be paid for the maintenance of his majesty's household, and the details in confirmation of the preamble proved that it was the intention of the legislature to apply the whole of that sum to expenses connected with his ma jesty's person. To remove, as it were, all possible doubt, a clause was inserted for rendering an account of the application of the money to the commissioners of the revenue; and it was provided, that if there should be any surplus, it was to go to the aid of the civil list. Had the view which the noble lord now took of the principle of the act been correct, it would have doubtless been provided, that the surplus should be given to her majesty; but no such thing was the case. Their lordships would, in fact, find that all the clauses perfectly illustrated the principle of the act. The clause which gave 10,000l. to her majesty for her own use, was a further proof that the other sum was exclusively designed for supporting his majesty's establishment. In the silence of the preamble, and of all the clauses, how could so extraordinary a construction be put upon the act? In addition to this, if their lordships were to refer to any of the contemporaneous expositions of the proceedings in parliament, they would find no trace of the principle which the noble earl had set up. Deficient and inaccurate as the contemporaneous publications to which he had alluded often were, it would be impossible to account for their silence, as well as the silence of all the records of parliament, if the supporters of the original bill had really had such an object in view. In the report of the House of Commons, which he must regret had not been laid before their lordships, it was recommended that the saving made on the 100,000l., applied to the Windsor establishment, should go to the civil list; but not a word was said in that report of any part of the money having been granted in lieu of the queen's dower. Let their lordships next look at the reductions, by which it became practicable to strike off 50,000l. from the former sum of 100,000l., and they would be still more convinced that no part of that sum could have been intended as a compensation to her majesty. What were the offices abolished? The vice-chamberlain of his majesty's household, four of the gentlemen and four of the grooms, of his majesty's bedchamber, and the master of the robes; did these officers form any part of the queen's establishment? There were besides, servants reduced to the amount of 5,000l. per annum, who were exclusively and personally attendant on the king. This new discovery made of the principle of the act which (VOL. XXXIX..) was about to be repealed, was in his opi nion far from showing respect to the memory of her late majesty. It was in that point of view not a little remarkable, that the noble earl should come forward and make the death of the queen a reason for reducing a part of that expense, the whole of which that noble earl, and all those who acted with him, had hitherto constantly maintained to be absolutely necessary for the dignity and comfort of the king. He could come to no conclusion on the subject but that the ministers of the Crown, after strenuously opposing, for a considerable time, any reduction in the establishment for the king, and having at last found that they must reduce it, had, in order to avoid the appearance of inconsistency, invented this argument of the establishment being partly for the use of the queen, that they might put forward the death of her majesty as a reason for the reduction, although no reason existed now that had not all along existed, why this establishment should not have been reduced. Nothwithstanding, however, the unfounded pretence on which the present measure was proposed, he was glad to find the proposition of reduction, which, whenever it had before been made, was always stigmatised as coming from persons who were wanting in loyalty, at length fully recognized by his majesty's ministers. He was very happy that a measure which had often been called for was now about to be obtained; and that those who had formerly resisted it were no longer disposed to accuse its supporters of deserting, under circumstances of great affliction, the sovereign to whom their loyalty was due. so often urged and at length acknowledged, he was, of course, ready to give his concurrence, so far as it was carried. He must confess that, when he first directed his attention to the subject, he did think that 50,000l. was too large a sum to be applied to the purposes of this bill, even for a sovereign in the unhappy situation in which his majesty was placed; but when he looked into the details of the establishment, and found that above one-third of the 50,000l. was necessary to keep up Windsor castle as a royal palace, he undoubtedly thought that the remaining sum was by no means too much to make an adequate provision for the esta blishment of the king, nor did he think that any one in the country could object to such an amount, recollecting that (4 K) To the principle, |