breach of the practice of parliament; but that to do this with a knowledge that the part so tacked was disagreeable to the other branch of the legislature, was highly danger ous and unconstitutional. He admitted that this doc trine had been applied by Mr. Hatsel to the tacking to money bills, measures unconnected with the supply, but contended, that the principle extended to preclude the house from any course that would reduce the other house to the alternative he had stated. If, therefore, the house, should see no reason, founded upon parliamentary usage, for declining the course he had to propose, why insert the grant in the appropriation act? why clog the supplies of the year with a measure that would endanger their passing the other house? The proposition upon which the grant rested, was one on which not only the present house-of commons entertained a difference of opinion, but a former house of commons had rejected. And there was as much reason to think, that any other assembly would differ from the present house of commons, as that the former house of commons had differed from it. If ever there had been as case in which the grant should be carried into effect by a separate act, it was the present. He should ask any ho nourable member to shew any case in which two votes, founded upon the same principle, had been carried into effect, one by a separate bill, the other by insertion in the appropriation act. If there was no similar case, then this. was a new case, and it was competent to the house to exercise its discretion upon it. The house would therefore decide, whether under all the circumstances of the case it' would prefer the separate or the general appropriation act. He should move that a bill be brought in pursuant to the resolution of the committee of supply.

The resolution was entered as read, and on the question being put,

Mr. Palmer observed, that the late chancellor of the exchequer had consented to have the claims of his relative referred to a committee, though in consequence of the change of administration no such committee had been appointed. It had therefore been a disappointment to his father to find that his claims had been resisted by the present chancellor of the exchequer. When he was returned to parliament he had waited on the present chancellor of the exchequer to ascertain what course he VOL. III.-1808. 4 B

was to take, and that right honourable ge tleman had can didly informed him of his intension to oppose the chims. On his complaining of the hardships of his father's case, i being denied a fair hearing, before the only tribunal to which he could appeal, the chancellor of the exchequer had assured him, that the case should be fairly heard, though he would not flatter him, that the weight of his opinion would not be exercised against him in the house. He thanked the right honourable ge: tleman for his candour, lamenting, that the weight of an opinion, high as it must be with the house, should be thrown in'o the scale against him, and on applying to him for advice respecting the course he was to take, he had been referred to the seaker. In consequence of the press of public business, he had been induced to put off his motion so long as he had done, especially as he was assured that he could not accomplish his object till a late stage of the session. The right ho vourable gentleman had given the consent of the crown for referring the business to a committee, which commitice had sanctioned the claim by its report. He had been blamed for bringing this bill forward, but in that he had only followed the course pointed out by the house. When so large a majority of that house had decided for the claim, he had every expectation the bill would pass quietly through the lords. He thought the arrears at least would not be opposed. As soon as he understood that an opposition was intended in another place, he had abandoned the bill by omiting to move the third reading. The right honourable gentleman had taken it then up, and sent it to the lords. With respect to the present bill proposed to be brought in, he was not concerned in it, and he would leave to the house to act upon the subject as it should think proper. He only begged to be spared the expence of a measure which could not succeed in the other house, though he should have no apprehension upon the subject if he was sure of a fair hearing in the lords. Here

The Speaker reminded the honourable member that it was not in order, to advert to the proceedings of the other house in such a manner.

A short conversation ensued on the point of order; after which

Mr. Palmer concluded by deprecating the bill, and the unnecessary and ineffectual expence that would attend it. Mr. Windham bore testimony to the candid and manly

manner in which the honourable member had conducted this business throughout. But it was neither that, nor the effect the present proceeding would have upon the interests of his relative, that made him rise, but to remind the house of the situation in which it was to be placed. The right honourable gentleman, in the pains he had taken to search for cases, resembled the man who built a costly edifice upon another man's ground. He had shewn what course the house might take if the matter was now intire, viz. that it may carry its vote into effect either by a separate bill, or a clause in the appropriation act. That would be correct in point of form, but would it be so in point of justice? The house had already decided upon the course it was to take. It had been agreed after a division in the committee, that the vote should be carried into effect by a clause in the appropriation act. What had since happened to change that course? A number of the members who had voted for that course, had left town,, upon a supposition that no alteration would take place. The house was precluded from resorting to any other course. The effect of all the right honourable gentleman's labour was to produce five cases which did not apply, being grants upon condition; several other of his cases were irrelevant, being grants for public works, and the only case that did apply, that of captain Roach, the house knew nothing of. All the right honourable gentleman stated was, that the house might adopt either of two courses, but he contended that they were in justice bound not to take the business out of the course that the house had decided upon, and particularly as the case was no longer before the same judges. As to what had been said, respecting the impropriety of not giving the lords an opportunity of exercising their judgment upon this as upon the other part of the case, he would ask, was there any grant on which a difference of opinion may not prevail? There was no grant in which the lords ought so readily to concur as a grant of money for public services. The sense of the house had in no instance been more strongly or deliberately expressed. The case rested upon the truth, the argument, and the evidence. It had been carried by no undue influence, and could not be called a party question, unless the right ho nourable gentleman should call that a party question on which he had been beaten, He then proceede! to con demn this system of reconsideration at the end of a session as a dangerous practice. It was not an appeal from Philip

drunk to Philip sober, not from a thin house to a full house, but from a full house to a less full house: he con cluded by expressing his dissent to the motion.

Mr. II. Browne observed, that this appeared to him a question wholly independant of the merits of Mr. Palmer's case. Ac's of appropriation, he thought, ought not be loaded with any extraneous votes. If the resolution had passed unanimously after discussion in this house, there would be reason to suppose, that it would be viewed in the same light by any of the other enlightened assembly. But great difference of opinion had not only prevailed upon the subject of this vote in that house, but out of doors; and it was his opinion, that the other branch of the legislature should not be deprived of the opportunity of unrestrained judgment upon the measure. The honourable gentleman. then entered into a justification of the grant to the duke of Athol, and concluded by expressing a wish that the busi ness should undergo every proper discussion.

Sir Thomas Turton agreed, that in the present case, the house was not to decide upon the merits of Mr. Palmer's claim, but upon the conduct of his majesty's minis'ers. The chancellor of the exchequer had referred to the authority of Mr. Hatsel, but that honourable gentleman had given the assent of the crown to the proposition, and, upon the same authority, he would state, that to give such assent when he meant to oppose the proposition, was unparliamentary. He should at least have remained neuter, and not have requested the support of his friends. The cases produced by the right honourable gentleman did not apply, any one, to this case. He defied any man to shew any case of a debt due from the public to an individual, that was not included in the appropriation act. He had not been long in parliament, but, though he may not be thoroughly acquainted with its usages, he knew enough of parliamentary courtesy to say, that it was not proper, in a parliamentary view, when any individual brought forward a bill, which was read a first and second time, to take that out of his hands without any communication with him.

Mr. G. Johnstone defended his right honourable friend (the chancellor of the exchequer) from the imputations of the honourable barone!, who, he thought, if confirmed in the opinions he expressed of his right honourable friend, ought not to have addressed him as he had done. For him

self he should never feel amity towards any person of whom he could entertain such opinions. When his right honourable friend had given the consent of the crown to this proposition, he had distinctly stated, that he gave that consent only that the question should be investigated, and at the same time declined any pledge upon the subject. All the cases quoted by his right honourable friend, appeared to him to be perfectly in point. He then contended, that the measure should be sent up to the lords in a shape in which that house should have an opportunity of exercising their unfettered discretion and judgment.

Mr. Tierney thought that so far as the sense of parlia ment could go, Mr. Palmer had a claim upon the public for 54,000/. This was the first time that a private bill was brought in against the will of the individual who was concerned. Where were the officers to go for their fees? Mr. Palmer disclaimed the bill. What was the reason of all this? the mortified pride of the right honourable gentlema. He had heard that no chancellor of the exchequer had ever been in five minorities on a question of finance. The reason was, that other chancellors of the exchequer had sense enough to see when there was danger in the wind, and wit enough to avoid it, by not pressing against the marked sense of the house, a measure upon which the house had repeatedly decided. The right honourable gentleman then proceeded to shew, that none of the cases cited by the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer, would conclude this case. The right honourable gentleman had not come down lower than 1787 in the cases which he had quoted. It remained for him to quote instances since. There appeared a case of a Dr. Carmichael Smith, to whom, for his discovery of fumigation by nitrous acid, a sum of 5,000l. had been granted by address to his majesty. The lords knew nothing of this grant, which was inserted in the appropriation act of the following year, to make good a like sum issued pursuant to an address of the house. The grant to Mr. Martin, an American loyalist, of 20,000l. as compensation, the grant to Messrs. Chalmers and Cowey, and the grant to Maynooth college in the present year, had been inserted in the appropriation act, without the lords having any opportunity of discussing the merits of the grants. The right honourable gentleman had challenged any gentleman to produce a case, in which an arrear and a prospective annuity were granted, and either was included in the appro

1