opinion of the greatest landed proprietors in London that was not the best way of letting it. It might, if let by auction, go off at a price below its value, and the buildings erected there might thus be let to unfit and irresponsible persons. Mr. Lennard said, he differed from the hon. member for Abingdon as to the construction of acts of Parliament regarding the Regent's-park, and as to the terms of the leases upon which the villas in that park had been let. It was quite true that there were provisions in the leases to prevent the building of any more villas there: but he could see nothing in the terms of those leases to prevent the Government from opening the area of the park to the public. He himself possessed a villa injects enjoying the comfort and recreation the park; but he did not think that the convenience of the public at large should be postponed to that of the few individuals who had villas there. Mr. Maberly said, when a part of the park was opened to the Zoological Society, he took counsel's opinion on the subject; and that opinion was, that the Government had no right to make that grant; and he could assure his hon. friend that if he would consult counsel on the point, he would find that, according to the terms of the leases of the buildings in the Park, the Government had no right or power to throw it open to the public. Mr. Warburton condemned the mode in which some of the new buildings erected on the site of Carlton-palace had been leased to Mr. Nash. His interest was of course opposed to the public in favor of his own, and in that way the public convenience was neglected." Mr. Beaumont saw no reason why St. James's-park should be looked upon in the light of private grounds. He was sure it would be a source of satisfaction and pleasure to the Sovereign to see his sub which that park would afford them. He sincerely believed, if the noble Lord opposite would make a representation on the subject in a proper quarter, that the convenience of the public would be fully attended to in that respect. He was sure the royal heart would be gladdened to see the inhabitants of this metropolis enjoying the recreations afforded by that park, and its rural scenery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that St. James's-park was an unfortunate instance to select for complaint, for within a very short period means had been taken to afford the greatest advantages to all classes of the public, by the improvements in that park. There was at this moment a road in progress on the south side of the park, which, when completed, would be of great advantage to the higher orders, and the opening of the interior of the park had been productive of the greatest advantages to all classes of society. Mr. Arbuthnot said, in reference to Mr. Nash becoming the lessee of some of these Mr. Beaumont wished for nothing more premises, the facts were simply these: than that every thing possible should be Mr. Nash made an offer for a lot of ground done for the accommodation of the public. for the erection of five houses, at the end-Agreed to, and the House went into a of the area in Waterloo-place, which could Committee of Supply. not be let. He took it on the condition of building those houses upon it, afterwards to be let to such tenants as the heads of the Woods and Forests might approve of, and Mr. Nash undertook to give them at the prime cost. He (Mr. Arbuthnot) knew that Mr. Nash had subsequently let them at the prime cost. Mr. Beaumont wished to know whether there had been any public competition allowed for this ground-whether it had been set up to public auction, or whether, on the contrary, Mr. Nash had not been suffered to take it by a private bargain, and very likely at his own price? Mr. Arbuthnot said, the public was fully aware at the time that this lot of ground was to be let. It had not been put up to public auction, because in the Mr. G. Dawson said, he proposed to take the vote for the Civil Contingencies upon account, as the amount was required for the carrying on the public service, and the House would hereafter have an opportunity of discussing the votes separately. He accordingly moved-"That a sum not exceeding 100,000l. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the charges of the civil contingencies for 1830." Mr. Hume would not object to taking this vote upon account now; but when the separate votes should come to be discussed, he would move a resolution, that it is expedient to effect a reduction in the diplomatic expenses of the country. He should object to voting 60,000l. or 70,000l. for extraordinary diplomatic expenses. A pledge had been given by Mr. Canning, that every reduction would be | Mediterranean to complete the proposed made in the diplomatic expenditure of the work. It certainly was commenced withcountry; but instead of that, it had gone out the sanction of Parliament, but he on increasing ever since. He thought was sure that the inconvenience to which 400,000l. too large a sum for that single the sick seamen would have been exposed department of the Government. wanting it, would induce the Parliament cheerfully to confirm the proceedings of the Admiralty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it would be found that considerable reductions had been effected in this part of the public expenditure this year. to. The Resolution was then put and agreed NAVY ESTIMATES.] Sir G. Clerk proceeded to move the remainder of the Navy Estimates, and commenced by moving a sum of 99,000l. for defraying the charges for repairs and improvements in his Majesty's Dock-yards. This vote had been objected to on account of the sum called for for the erection of a new naval hospital in Malta. The building of that hospital had been determined upon in consequence of the increase of our naval force in that quarter, and of the want of adequate accommodation for the sick. The naval hospital was situated in a narrow and crowded part of the town of Valetta, but had been found so inconvenient that the Government had given it up. Since our force had been increased in that quarter all the accommodation which could be procured for the sick, was found inadequate. The Admirals in command on that station had frequently represented this, and the Admiralty therefore found it necessary to submit an estimate to the Treasury of 17,0001. for building a new hospital. He did not think that too much, but the hon. member for Abingdon had objected to the vote on the ground of irregularity in commencing the work before the sanction of Parliament had been obtained for the necessary expenditure. As a general rule his objection was quite correct, but the exigencies of the public service did not always allow the executive Government to follow that rule; the Finance Committee of 1817 had indeed recognized the necessity of the Government sometimes departing from this plan. That committee recommended, that works should not be undertaken by the subordinate departments till the consent of the Treasury had been obtained, and this recommendation had been complied with. The Estimate had been submitted to the Treasury, and it had in August last issued orders, when a large force was sent to the Mr. Maberly objected to voting 17,0007. for the erection of this hospital. In his opinion Government had failed to make out a case of emergency, and their conduct had evinced a total disregard of the opinion of Parliament. He thought it very strange that a sum of 17,000l. should be expended in building an hospital on a foreign station at a time of peace; and he thought it still more strange that such an expenditure should have been incurred in a most unconstitutional manner. On various occasions, in 1711, in 1764, in 1784, in 1791, and in 1817, resolutions had been passed maintaining the principle that no money should be expended by Government without first obtaining the sanction of the House. In 1818 a Treasury Minute was passed to this effect, founded on that recommendation of the Finance Committee of 1817, to which the hon. Baronet had alluded. The question with him, therefore, was, whether the conduct of the Admiralty ought not to be considered as a breach of the defined law of Parliament. The facts stated proved that there was no such emergency as the hon. Baronet spoke of. It appeared that the work had been contemplated for three or four years, and the emergency was only thought of when the sanction of Parliament was to be obtained to the proceeding. He called on the committee, therefore, to refuse the grant, because the case involved that important principle by which that House was to exercise a control over the public expenditure. If the Government were to decide on the expediency of public works, that would reduce the power of control exercised by Parliament to a mere nullity. If ever there was a violation of constitutional principles this case was such a violation. The only circumstance which would justify the proceeding was, that without the hospital the public service could not have gone on. No such case had however been made out, no immediate and urgent necessity had been shewn for the work, and he therefore should feel himself bound to resist the vote. Sir G. Cockburn said, that Government had endeavoured as long as possible to avoid the expense of erecting a new hospital at Malta. After the battle of Navarino, however, Government received the most distressing reports of the misery which our wounded sailors experienced from the situation and the inadequate accommodation of the old hospital. In one representation their sufferings were described as dreadful, and even horrible. It was at that period far from improbable that another engagement might have occurred. A large additional force was sent to the Mediterranean, to provide for the wants of which the old hospital was wholly inadequate. Government, therefore, considered it a duty to provide against such a contingency, and he did not believe that a British House of Commons would blame the Government for what it had done. Mr. Hume said, he objected to the conduct of Government, because it was opposed to the principle that no foreign works should be executed without the consent of Parliament, unless upon cases of emergency. In confirmation of that opinion the hon. Member quoted the following Order of the Treasury on this subject, dated in 1791, and signed H. Dundas. "My Lords are of opinion that no Commander-in-chief or governor is authorised to incur any expenses for which money has not been already granted by Parliament, or which has not been previously approved of by his late Majesty, and his Majesty's order signified by this Board for that purpose. That, secondly, if any governor or Commander-in-chief shall be of opinion that any expense ought to be incurred for the good of his Majesty's service, he is previously to make a representation thereof to the proper office at home, which is to communicate the same to this Board that his Majesty's pleasure may be taken thereupon, and that a proper estimate may be laid before Parlia ment, to the end that such sums may be granted as Parliament should think necessary for that purpose." The order went on to state that in case of any unforeseen emergency rendering it impossible to apply to Parliament, the governor or Commander-in-chief was to transmit information to the Treasury, with the reasons for incurring the expense, but not to incur it if it could possibly be avoided. He contended, therefore, that this regulation had not been complied with, that no case of emergency had been made out, and that there had been a direct violation of the principle on which money was granted to the Crown. What made the case stronger was, that no estimate had been submitted to the Admiralty subsequent to that submitted by Lord Collingwood in 1809, so that from that time till 1830 the same state of things had existed, had been known, and yet to remedy it was called an emergency. Supposing, however, that it might be necessary to expend 16,000l. in 1809, the amount of the estimate sent by Lord Collingwood, it did not at all follow, when prices had everywhere fallen, that the same sum would be required in 1830. He admitted that the old hospital was inconvenient but he contended that the new one was not wanted. Sir Pulteney Malcolm stated the number of sick, in a despatch dated May 1829 to be 100, in a force of 6,000 persons. The increased force subsequently sent out had been again withdrawn in ordinary times, there never was a larger force than 6,000 men in the Mediterranean and he could not possibly conceive that 17,000l. ought to be expended to supply accommodation for 100 men. He had a right also to complain that this vote was not included in the Estimates of last year, it having been before that time under the consideration of the Admiralty. He hoped at least that the vote would be passed over till all the information connected with the subject was laid before it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the general principle contended for by the hon. Member opposite; but he maintained that Government had acted upon a case of emergency. After the explanation given by his hon. friend who had moved the vote, he did not in fact expect to hear it opposed. The hospital at Malta was found inadequate to provide for our sick when we had only 6,000 men on that station: when our force was raised to 8,000, Government felt it imperative, for the benefit of the service, to build stances which had induced the Government to consent to the erection of this chapel at the public expense. Last year, when he went down to the dock-yard at Pembroke, the officers met him with a representation that the shipwrights were anx Lord Althorp said, that he believed a new hospital was wanted at Malta, and therefore he did not blame Government for having built one. But it did not appear to him that there had been that sort of sudden emergency which justified Ministers in going to such an expense with-ious to attend divine service at the estabout the previous sanction of Parliament. At the same time, when the question was whether our wounded seamen should be provided with a comfortable hospital, instead of being carried to a bad one, up a steep hill, which must add to their sufferings, he could not object to the vote. Mr. Croker said, it was impossible for Government to delay any longer the building of a new hospital, after our force off that station had been increased. The estimates for it had been regularly submitted to the Treasury, which Board had not consented to the measure till the emergency arose which required a large additional force in the Mediterranean. Mr. Warburton said, that it appeared to him that the House was called upon to make this grant without any satisfactory estimate having been placed before it. Mr. Croker repeated his former statement, that all the necessary estimates had been laid before the Treasury in July last that at that time they had been rejected, --but that, in consequence of the emergency which had rendered it necessary for us to send an increased force into the Mediterranean, it had been deemed necessary to proceed with the building of the hospital. Mr. Maberley proposed that this part of the vote should be postponed till the papers were printed. Mr. Hume wished to know what amount of money had been already drawn on account of this work. Sir G. Cockburn. None has been drawn yet. Mr. Hume was glad to hear it--but still thought that Government had made but a very lame case of it. The Question was then put; but before it was carried, Mr. Hume said, that there was another item in this vote to which he felt considerable objection. After voting a million and a half for new churches, he could not see any reason why the Committee should be called upon to vote 4,0007. for the erection of a new chapel at the Dockyard at Pembroke. Sir B. Martin explained the circum lished church, but were not able to do so from want of room. As there were upwards of 500 shipwrights there, and as their families amounted to upwards of 2,000 souls, the Government had deemed it only right to afford them a place for the celebration of divine worship. Only 2,000l. would be wanted for the erection of the chapel this year; 4,000l. would be the total expense of its erection, as Mr. Macintosh had contracted to erect it for that sum. If it were not built now, it would never be built at so cheap a rate at any other period, as Mr. Macintosh, who was now building some works for the Ordnance, could build at a cheaper rate now than he could at any other time. Colonel Davies said, that the parish church was not more than two miles distant, and he therefore should support the hon. Member's objection to the grant. Mr. Maberly said, that there had been an intention at one time to get rid of this dock-yard altogether; if so, what occasion was there to build this chapel? Sir G. Clerk said, that there were so many local advantages about this yard, that he could assure the Committee that there was no intention to abandon it. Mr. Hume called upon the Committee to consider well what they were going to do. If they determined to make a dockyard at Pembroke, they would soon be called upon to vote money for the purpose of building fortifications to protect it, for the dock-yard could not protect itself. He should therefore propose to postpone the voting of this item of 2,0007. till next year, when they would be able to discover whether this dock-yard would be continued or not. At present the House was asked for 99,000l. for a department which before the French war cost 25,0007. Was that to be borne? Part of the expense, he observed, was for the superannuation of chaplains, which he did not understand, as he never heard of superannuated bishops. Sir B. Martin said, the superannuations were allowed to chaplains on the same principle precisely, that they were allowed to other persons. Mr. Trant observed, that having a great regard for the moral instruction and religious welfare of the Army and Navy, he felt himself bound to support this part of the grant. The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but Mr. Hume consented to withdraw his Amendment. He had another question, however, to put to the gallant officer opposite. How was it that he came to ask the Committee this year to vote 3,000l. for works upon the lakes in Canada? Sir G. Cockburn said, that this sum was wanted to keep up the works which were necessary for the repair of the ships we had on the lakes at the close of the American war. By the treaty then made, we had a right to keep them in repair, though we could not increase their number. It was impossible to say what the expense of these establishments might be in time of war; but it would never exceed 2,000l. or He 3,000l. a-year, in time of peace. could assure the hon. member for Aberdeen, that the American ships at Sacket's Harbour were as well taken care of as our own. The Vote was then agreed to. The sum of 210,000l. for the purchase of Provisions for troops and garrisons on foreign stations, and for the Convict service, was voted without any remark. 250,000l. as the charge for Transports was also voted. ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.] Mr. S. Perceval then rose, to propose the Ordnance Estimates to the Committee, but spoke in so low and indistinct a tone that the greater part of his speech was inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to say, that he should not have occasion to occupy much of the time of the Committee, as the duty which he had to perform was fortunately very simple. The reductions which had been made in the Ordnance Department in the year 1820 had been carried to the utmost point to which they could be well carried, with a due regard to the proper equipment and permanent efficacy of that branch of the public service; and therefore he should not have to detain them long by enumerating the retrenchments which had taken place in this department. Under the present circumstances of the country, it might seem to some hon. Members that the reduction of the Estimates this year was not such as they had reason to expect; but they were sufficient, he thought, to satisfy the it |