He would in the committee propose a The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, limit, and as he objected to the expen-that his object was, to limit the expense diture of 34,000l. on sculpture, he would to be incurred for Buckingham-palace to move that this 34,000l. be annulled from the grant.

the sum now proposed. It should be recollected, that he did not come there as if for the first time to ask for indefinite authority to proceed. He found the act before him; and he wished to limit the future payments under that act to the amount now deficient. The responsibility as to the site of the palace did not fall on him and his colleagues alone. It was the

Lord Althorp wished to know whether the sum of 496,0001. in the estimate in cluded the sum of 250,0001. got from the fund for the French claims? [Some hon. member observed that it did.] He could not but think that the mode in which the money was applied was most extravagant. It was voted originally with undue con-adoption of the House; and the House fidence in ministers, for which the House ought to take shame; and that confidence had been badly met by those in whom it was reposed. He thought the Treasury were much to blame in not exercising a more effectual control over the expen-plan. In short, the chief parts of the diture.

Mr. Hume said, that he, for one, could not take to himself any of the blame which the noble lord said ought to fall on those who did not object to this grant in the first instance; for he had refused to give his confidence to ministers on the subject. The chancellor of the Exchequer of the time had declared that the expense should not exceed the 250,000l., which he characterised as a God-send. For his own part, he did not blame Mr. Nash, but the Lords of the Treasury. They were the culpable parties, and were responsible for the extravagant expense which had been incurred.

had also sanctioned the situation. It was true that the sum of 250,000l. was first mentioned; but many important items were excepted from that estimate. The arch had also been a part of the original

work, as it now existed, were planned and adopted; and all that he and his colleagues had to do was to consider whether the work was to be carried on to its completion. The right hon. gentleman contended, that to leave the arch unfinished, now that one side of it was completed, would occasion a greater deformity in the whole building than any which the hon. member for Dorset had noticed. He had seen the model of the arch, and he thought it was one which would do no discredit to the nation. He, as well as the first lord of the Treasury, had recently inspected the palace; and though no part of it was finished, he could not allow that Mr. Protheroe thought Mr. Nash had it was so very far from completion as hon. been hardly dealt with. Before the com- members supposed. He would move, mittee on the subject, Mr. Nash had ex-that after the word "thereto," the folplained the situation in which he stood with reference to the Board of Works, and had stated that he had no control over those who executed his plans. With regard to the palace, it was in such a state at present that it would not be possible to form an estimate of the money that would be required to complete it. Had any one of his majesty's ministers ever seen the palace? He himself had seen it, and did not think that it could be completed for the estimate now framed. Not a room was plastered. Many of the doors had received only one coat of paint. The ceilings were but half finished; and none of the gilding had been executed. Then there was the furniture. All these things convinced him that the expenditure would be greater than was at present anticipated.

The House went into the committee.

lowing words be inserted...“ And that the sums so applied, under this act, for such alterations and improvements, shall not exceed 150,000l. over and above the sums already appropriated to such purposes previous to the passing of this act."

Mr. Bankes said, he wished to reduce this sum by 34,450l., the sum proposed to be expended upon the sculpture on the arch. He should accordingly move, as an amendment, that the sum to be expended shall not exceed 115,5507.

After a short conversation, the committee divided: For the motion 91. For Mr. Bankes's Amendment 61. Majority 30. The House having resumed, colonel Davies gavé notice, that he would tomorrow move for a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Nash, so far as regards the granting of certain leases of Crown Lands.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, May 27.

was entitled to the good opinion of the House and of the country, from the readiness with which he offered to meet his accusers.

Mr. Huskisson expressed a hope, that as these two gentlemen had been thus dragged before the House, the hon. colonel would give up the authority on which he had made the charge, and compel their accuser to meet them before the committee.

CROWN LEASES-CONDUCT OF MR. NASH.] Colonel Davies, in rising to submit the motion of which he had given notice, said, that having felt it his disagreeable duty to go at length into the charges against Mr. Nash on a former evening, he would on the present occasion confine himself simply to moving, "that a select committee be appointed to inquire Sir C. Burrell expressed a hope that the into the conduct of Mr. Nash, so far as committee would have power to inquire regards the granting of leases, or the sale into the circumstances of the blunders of Crown lands, in Suffolk-street, Pall-which had been made in the erection of mall East, Regent-street, and adjoining Buckingham-palace. the Regent's-canal."

Sir M. W. Ridley said, he was glad of the motion, for the sake of Mr. Nash; and he felt it a duty to that gentleman, without waiting for the report which the committee might make, to state his conviction, that Mr. Nash's conduct would bear the strictest inquiry. He was sorry that the hon. colonel had lent the sanction of his name to charges which, he had not the slightest doubt, would turn out to be wholly unfounded. The moment Mr. Nash had heard of the charge, he expressed the most earnest wish that his conduct should be submitted to the strictest scrutiny; and he had a petition from him to the House to the same effect, which he was prevented from presenting only by the forms of the House.

Mr. Jones bore testimony to the honourable character of Mr. Nash, as well as to that of Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards had once a seat in that House for the county of Glamorgan; and it was of the utmost importance to a man of his honourable character, that the charges which had been sent forth against him should meet the fullest inquiry. For such inquiry Mr. Edwards, as well as Mr. Nash, was

most anxious.

Mr. Maberly said, there was another subject of importance into which an inquiry should be made: he meant that of government allowing Mr. Nash their adviser to take leases.

Colonel Davies said, he had the autho rity of a most respectable individual for the charges he had made. That individual moved in the society of gentlemen, and was as respectable as any member of that House. With respect to what had fallen from the right hon. member for Liverpool, about giving up his authority, he would do no such thing. If he saw that the charge was made from any improper mo tive, he would have no hesitation in doing so; but as he knew that the proof of their truth or falsehood did not depend on any knowledge of the party from whom he derived his information, he could not think of violating the confidence of a private communication. The precedent would be a most improper one in that House. He had no feeling of hostility towards Mr. Nash, and he hoped he would be able to free himself from all the charges against him. The duty which he had undertaken was a most unpleasant one; and he was urged to it solely by a desire to discharge his duty to the public. The man who accused Mr. Nash-who was a man of much influence-as much, nearly, as the right hon. members on the opposite bench-had nothing to gain. He could make no friend by prosecuting the charge, and might make more than one enemy; but, notwithstanding these considerations, he preferred the charge, because he considered it his duty to have the affair fully examined.

Mr. Peel suggested, that as there would be no objection to the committee, nothing should be urged that might prejudge the case. One thing, however, ought not to be left out of consideration, in justice to Mr. Nash; namely, that as soon as he heard of the charge against him, he lost not a moment in challenging the fullest inquiry into his conduct. If, from circumstances over which the hon. member and Mr. Nash had no control, the com- The motion was agreed to, and a com mittee might not have time to make as mittee appointed. full a report as the case required. Mr. Nash

2

populate the country of gentlemen. The | If this principle were to be acted on, it enactments were most arbitrary, and tend- would be better to allow every man in the ed to encourage poaching. He was told country to enjoy the benefit of sporting. it had passed the House of Commons un- When it was said, that poaching increased animously. He was sure that the friends crime, persons did not consult the returns of liberty in the other House must have made to parliament. By them it appearbeen asleep when it passed. What were ed, that crime had increased at the rate of the provisions of the bill? It allowed forty per cent in towns, and twenty-three Game to be sold; any man who had twenty or twenty-four per cent in the country, acres might shoot and depute his tenant, If any conclusion could be drawn from and any man who had a hundred acres, this, it was, that our Game-laws did not might shoot and depute any one. By it tend to increase crime. He lamented as any one man was enabled to take another much as any person the excess of crime; by the collar and keep him fast, until he and he opposed the bill because he thought carried him before a magistrate, where he it would tend to increase crime. The might be fined 51. It also took away the question between him and the supporters rights of lords of manors. Up to this time, of the bill, was not whether crime should they alone had the right of giving deputa- be increased or diminished: on that they tions; but now every man, who owned were agreed; but whether the bill would twenty acres of land, might give a deputa- diminish crime. If he thought it would, tion. This was an infringement on the no man would be more ready than he rights of lords of the manor. Something, should be to adopt it. There were two as had been stated, had been given in com- sorts of poaching-that in which a little pensation. He (lord W.) did not know was done by trick and cunning, and that what, or what right there was to dispose of in which men assembled with arms in that. He wished to see the rights of the their hands; and the latter he considered people of England protected by the laws of a crime against civil society. This conthe land, and by the judges, and not wiped duct ought to be put down; and he had out by the whim of any projector. By trusted it would have been by a wise law this bill we should have forty or fifty per- passed last year. We had been threatensons walking about every parish, and each ed with a repeal of the Spring-gun bill. one attended by his aide de camp, carrying He had supported that bill, not on account his fire-arms. He doubted if this would of Game, but because he did not think add to the safety of the people; and he that in civilised society, any man ought to desired to point out what dangerous con- be allowed to kill another for taking a sequences must be the result of disputes pheasant or a hare. He did not believe between armed men upon this irritating that allowing the sale of Game would prosubject. Let any body accompany him duce all the benefit anticipated, and he through the bill, either on the amusements wished this to be judged by reason and arof shooting or hunting. He was sorry he gument. Did not men steal sheep, or could not promise either very safe or other articles of property? It was the pleasant amusement: in the first he would difficulty of disposal, and fear of detection be stopped by an armed man at every and punishment, that prevented crime; corner of a field; in hunting, a man might and as this bill, by giving such extensive be stopped till he had proved that he was license to have Game, would totally prehunting his own hunted fox. If there vent detection, and facilitate disposal, it were learned lawyers in the House, he must tend to increase the offence: for the would be glad to know by what means experiment had been tried with respect to this property was to be ascertained. Some deer, to fish, and to rabbits, and he found fox-hunters, he understood, patronised that within three years seventy-five perthe bill, but they would find that it would sons had been imprisoned for deer stealing, destroy their sport. By the bill, a man no fish-ponds were safe, and rabbits were who had eighteen acres of fertile ground the staple commodity of the poacher. He in one spot, and eighteen in another spot, should move that the bill be read a second with twenty acres of barren ground be- time this day three months. tween them, could not shoot a head of game; but the owner of the barren twenty acres might shoot all the game that was fattened in his neighbour's fertile land.

Lord Wharncliffe observed, that when the noble earl said that the bill did not go far enough, and that it ought to include every landholder, however small, he per

fectly agreed with him; but as he knew that that principle, however just, would not be admitted by their lordships, he was content with the bill as it stood,

unoccupied, and thereby exposing their property to loss by robbers; the alternative obliging those persons who are by such omission deprived of the opportunity The Earl of Tankerville observed, that of attending the Established Service, and where there was so much doubt about the who think it a duty incumbent on them to bill, he thought it would be advisable to go to some place of public worship, to remake it law only for the time, with a view sort to dissenting meeting houses, to Roof trying its effects; and he should, there-man Catholic chapels, or to congregations fore, propose to limit its duration to three years.

denying the doctrine of the blessed Trinity; the only course, as it appears to your Petitioner, by which they can legally exonerate themselves from the penalties to which they are liable for not resorting to their

The Earl of Malmesbury said, that on the third reading he should propose an amendment of a different kind. He did not think that the bill ought to be an ex-parish church or chapel. perimental bill. If they passed it, they must pass it for ever. They were now about to make Game a property attached to the soil. There were many who said, that the sale of Game would diminish crime, and with that view he should not object to adopt that part of the bill as an experiment, and to try its effect for three years, by allowing those to sell Game who were qualified to kill it.

The Marquis of Salisbury did not think that this bill involved the principle of property. It seemed to him only to give the means of enjoying their property, to men who now were refused those means. At present, a man possessed of twenty acres, could not shoot Game on his own land, but might give authority to another to do so. The bill only proposed to get rid of this inconsistency. He hoped it would be carried.

The House divided For the bill 89, against it 91; Majority against the bill 2.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 1.

CHURCH SERVICES PETITION OF GENERAL THORNTON.] Mr. Jones presented the following Petition from lieutenant-general William Thornton :

"That your Petitioner humbly prays your honourable House to take into consideration the danger arising to the Established Church, from the forbearance of enforcing the performance of both morning and evening Service on Sundays, in every parish church and parochial chapel, and the chapel of every extra-parochial place, throughout England and Ireland, whereby it is rendered impossible for many persons to obey the laws, or the dictates of their own conscience, by resorting to their parish church or chapel accustomed upon every Sunday, without leaving their habitations

"Your Petitioner had the honour of a seat in parliament when the act of the fifty-seventh year of King George the 3rd, commonly called The Clergy Residence Act,' was passing; and as it appeared to your Petitioner that the forbearance of the bishops to enforce the power given to them by the said act would be no excuse to the clergy for such a neglect of duty as the non-performance of either the morning or evening service on Sundays, your Petitioner strenuously urged, but without success, that the clergy should be liable to some pecuniary penalty or forfeiture for any such omission, which should go and be paid to the person or persons who should inform and sue for the same. It was asserted, that it might be safely intrusted to the bishops to enforce the two services; but nearly twelve years of trial, since the act was passed, have but too truly proved the correctness of your Petitioner's sentiments.

"Your Petitioner, being firmly attached to the Established Church, thinks it a subject of joy and congratulation to all true Christians that it is no longer subject to the charge of bigotry and oppression; but your Petitioner is anxious to uphold the power all persons ought to enjoy of attending its public service on Sundays, or of bringing such ministers to punishment as, by neglect of duty, deprive them of such opportunity.

"In conclusion, your Petitioner humbly prays your honourable House to adopt such measures as shall, in future, make imperative the performance of both morning and evening service on Sundays, in every parish church and parochial chapel, and the chapel of any extra-parochial place, throughout England and Ireland, for the benefit and security of the members of the Established Church,"