moved the order of the day, for taking into consideration the report of the committee on the petition of the cotton workmen and manufacturers. The order being read, the right hon. gent, moved, that the resolutions of the committee be read, which being done, he proceeded to observe, that before he moved that the resolutions be read a second time, it was proper he should open the nature of the subject now before the house; but he was glad that in doing so, it was not necessary for him to enter much into its detail. He should call the attention of the house to the circumstances upon which the matter now stood, and then, in a few words, state for what reasons the committee passed these resolutions, and why he thought it his duty to ask the house to agree to them. Gentlemen would recollect, that about 4 years ago, for it was early in the year 1800, a very considerable, and a very unpleasant disagreement took place between the masters and workmen engaged in the cotton manufactory, in consequence of which petitions were presented to the house by a very large body, praying for legislative interference to redress their grievances. That was a period of great difficulty in the country, especially in the manufacturing part of it, arising from the stagnation of trade in the arduous contest in which we were then engaged; and also from the scarcity and high price of provisions, which, to a great extent, affected all classes of his Majesty's subjects, and more particularly the working part of them. He did think it extremely possible, perhaps probable, that if it had not been for the irritation arising from distress, thus produced from a combination of causes, these petitions would never have been presented. They were, however, presented, and the subject matter of them had been referred to a committee, which (passing over one of its members, of whom it did not become him to say any thing) consisted of very intelligent and enlightened members of that house, who considered the subject, reported upon it, and an act of parliament past to alter the law as it then stood, with respect to the mode of appealing to magistrates, to appoint referees to decide on matters in dispute between masters and workmen in the cotton trade. Whether that was a proper measure, or not, would be improper in him to doubt; he deferred to the sense of the perfectly respectable members of that committee, and imperious and weighty reasons pressed upon their minds at the time, which induced them to make their report, and to form an opinion which was peculiar to the circumstances under which they made it.—The committee had endeavoured on the one hand to form an impartial tribunal to decide on matters of dispute, to afford speedy redress to those who had just grounds of complaint, at as limited an expense as possible; and on the other, they had endeavoured to avoid any restriction or regulation which might be considered by the manufacturers as fettering the trade, in the prosperity of which, the interests of all the workmen, as well as the masters, were materially involved. In giving the petitioners all they asked, the legislature might give them that which afterwards they might repent of asking. The committee could have no possible object, but to do justice to both parties, and they were, perhaps, better judges of the interest of the petitioners, than the petitioners themselves. His motion should be, that the house, do agree to the resolutions of this committee; and if it should be the pleasure of the house to do so, then he should move for an act of parliament to carry these resolutions into effect; after which, upon reflection, he hoped the cotton weavers themselves would be satisfied, and that they would be convinced they had all which could with propriety be granted, and that the manufacturers also, would, in their turn, be satisfied that care had been taken that no injury was done to them, so that neither the one, nor the other, should hereafter think it necessary to apply to parliament. He then moved that these resolutions be now read a second time.

wished to know, whether this measure was brought on by govt., or originated with the manufacturers themselves? He thought that a measure similar to this, ought to be adopted, with reference to the woollen trade. He wished to know, whether any steps were likely to be taken, in consequences of a memorial which had been presented on the subject of the woollen trade?

said, that business had been already partly brought forward by a right hon. relation of his, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he understood that the manufacturers were at liberty to apply to be heard by counsel against any bills that might be brought in pursuant to these resolutions, if they thought fit.—The resolutions were then read and agreed to; after which, Mr. H. Addington moved, that a bill be brought in pursuant to the three last resolutions.

said, he was not going to oppose the bringing in the bill now moved for, but he wished it to be understood as his opinion, that the greatest difficulties which had been felt on this subject, had arisen chiefly from our departing from the constitutional mode of adjusting differences between master and servant; he meant that of an appeal to the magistrate.—The question was then put, and leave was given to bring in the bill.

rose, and stated that he felt himself under the necessity of still farther postponing the motion respecting the circulating coin in Ireland, of which he had given notice for this day. It being the wish of his Majesty's govt. that this subject should be fully investigated and the most ample information obtained, dispatches were hourly looked for from Ireland, which were deemed necessary upon this point, and until they should arrive, he would decline to bring forward his pro- mised motion. If the intelligence should be received by to-morrow he would take occasion to submit the business to the consideration of the house, but if not, he hoped he should stand excused for postponing it to another day.

expressed his regret that, under the severe pressure of the evil, which now bore on the people of Ireland, and particularly on the inhabitants of the metropolis, that the right hon. gent. should think it proper to put off for a moment the proposition of some remedy. The hon. member was proceeding, when

observed, that it, was the established custom of the house not to suffer a speech to be made on such an occasion as the present; it was not allowed by the rules of the house, that there should be any argumentative notice. If the hon. member intended to conclude with a motion, it was competent to him to proceed, but not otherwise.

called the attention of the house to the subject of the payment of the salaries of the ministers of Ireland, who occasionally resided in this country, he meant the mode in which that payment was made, for they were paid at par. It was now six weeks or nearly two months since he first mentioned the subject in the house, and he thought it incumbent on him to bring the matter forward for the consideration of the house; he gave notice that he should this day do so, and he now proposed to fulfil that promise.—The subject was that of payment of salaries of the ministers of that part of his Majesty's govt. which related to Ireland, who occasionally resided in England, which payment was made at par. When this circumstance was first mentioned to the house, which it was by him, it appeared to every body who heard it, to be an extraordinary fact, when it was admitted to be a fact, and he must be allowed to remind the right hon gent. (Mr. Corry) who admitted it, with what reluctance he brought the matter forward; but, however, he was impelled to it by a sense of public duty, and for the same reason he was bound to pursue it; and here he must, premise what he had to say, with observing, that there was no part of the duty of that house more imperative than that of watching over every part of the expenditure of the public money. There generally did exist, and always ought to exist in that house, a jealousy concerning all money transactions, and it ought to be exercised with vigilance on the present occa- sion, and he was glad to say, that the question which he should lay before the house for its consideration, would lie within a narrow compass, for the chief part of it was neither more nor less than what was to be considered as the meaning of the plain letter of an act of parliament. The amount of the sums out of which this arose, was indeed small, but it was the principle which constituted the importance of the subject. Here he proceeded to read the acts of parliament of the 30th of the King, for regulating the payment of the salaries of all the servants of the crown in the civil departments of the state; and then contended, that the commissioners of the treasury in Ireland, had no right to interfere with the payment of the salaries of the officers of govt., nor with any sums of money whatever, while it was in transitu; for it was not only repugnant to the law he had just quoted, but contrary also to precedent. He contended that the order which had been issued by the commissioners of the treasury in Ireland, for the payment at par of the civil officers of the govt. of the country, occasionally resident in this, was not warranted, and was therefore an excess of their authority. He would ask, what were the salaries of these officers of govt.? Were they not charges upon the public revenue of the country? If so, by what authority was any alteration made in them? He said, that payment to any person out of the public revenue of the country of more than was allowed by law, was irregular, and quite unwarrantable; and if the right hon. gent, opposite to him (Mr. Corry), was allowed to proceed in this manner, where were we to stop? He contended, therefore, that this was an unwarrantable act. He did not charge ministers with a deliberate design to over-rule the law; but he said, that these irregular and unwarrantable acts would have that effect, unless checked by the house. It was admitted that the half pay officers of Ireland were not paid at par, while they might be occasional residents in this country. Now, upon what ground the civil officers of govt. claimed to be paid at par, when no such advantage was allowed to the half-pay officers, he was at a loss to conceive. He knew many reasons why the half-pay officers, who had devoted the whole of their time, and often risked their lives in defence and for the service of their country, should have more advantages in the mode of receiving their little pay, but not one reason why they should have less than the civil officers of the govt. There was therefore no principle on which this mode of payment could be supported; because, if it was upon principle, the thing should be adopted generally to all whose services belonged to the govt. of Ireland, and who were occasionally resident in this country But by this practice of paying officers of the Irish govt. at par, if they should happen to come over here for 6 weeks, they had an advantage of 10 per cent. on the course of exchange. He knew not why many of the civil officers of the Irish govt. came into this country. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for instance, what reason was there why he should be in England at all, otherwise than as a member of parliament, in which character he had no salary? The same observation might be made on the case of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Corry); there was no occasion for his residence in England, otherwise than as a member of parliament, in which character he was entitled to no salary. The same might be said of the inspector-general of the imports and exports, who was not of necessity here. The same of the officers of the customs of the port of Dublin, and many others; yet they were all here, and had the advantage of receiving their salaries at par. These multiplied instances of this advantage given to the civil officers of the executive govt. of Ireland, confirmed him in the conviction of the impropriety of the practice. Here the noble lord read passages from pages 11 and 12 of the account which was laid on the table (see Vol. I. p. 1163) of the money paid to different officers for their salaries at par, from which he argued, there were abuses in this system, and observed, that the more he considered the subject, the more he was convinced of the impropriety of the practice. He then insisted on the particular inexpediency of the practice at the present moment, under all the present circumstances of that country, and that the more remarkably, on account of the deplorable state of the currency of that country, which had for a long time past been felt as a very great evil. He maintained, that without imputing any improper motives, it looked unfavourably, that the commissioners of the revenue should benefit themselves by an order which they made contrary to law, and should themselves claim, by their own order, a benefit which they did not allow to others, who, if the measure was right, had a better claim to it. He observed also, that this matter remained a secret for a while, and until he brought it forward in the house: if he was right, why was it concealed at all? this was a matter which had also an unfavourable appearance. He contended, that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Corry) could not, of his own individual authority, do any act for the raising any money not allowed by law, for any body; still less proper did it seem to be when that money went partly to himself, such money not being in the exchequer, and, therefore, not subject to his cognizance. These were two points on which his objection to this practice rested. The 3d point was, that the principle on which the practice was defended, had compleatly alled, for it was not general in its application, the half-pay officers deriving no advantage from it, and before it could deserve the name of a principle, the application of it must be general. Lastly, the only persons who were made to benefit by the practice, were the last from whom it ought to be expected, namely, the commissioners of the treasury of Ireland, who issued the order; nor was there any excuse for this having happened by inadvertency, or any thing of that sort, for there was no account made out on the subject of the revenue of Ireland, in which the course of exchange did not appear, therefore they had the subject constantly before their eyes. He should have thought that their being in a situation of trust, would have prevented them from converting it, for they had converted it, into their own emolument; he must be allowed to deliver his opinion upon these matters, without softening his language, and to use such as were applicable to the facts, as they appeared in proof. He said, he was warranted in saying, that they had turned their situation of trust to their own private emolument. He then read the resolutions which he proposed to submit to the house, viz.; "Resolved, that it appears to this house, that payments have been made in London, of salaries charged on the Irish establishment, out of money to be remitted to the Irish treasury, thereby preventing the profits of the exchange thereof, from being of credit to the public, as is done in other cases.—Resolved, that they have been made without sufficient authority.—Resolved, that such practice is unwarrantable, and ought to be discontinued."

observed, that the noble lord, in the statement he had been pleased to make upon this occasion, had travelled more into general propositions than was necessary. The main question was a very simple one, namely, whether money in possession of the agent in England belonging to the Irish treasury, was or was not subject to the order of the commissioners of the Irish treasury? Then, supposing that to be decided in the affirmative, the next question would be, whether the application that was made of that money under that order, was a fit and proper application, under all the circumstances of the case? In other words, whether the order of the commissioners of the Irish treasury proceeded from a competent or legal authority, or not? And he apprehended the noble lord had taken the matter too widely, when he considered that the money transferred from the treasurer of that country to the Irish agent in this must be considered as money in transitu to the Irish exchequer, in the situation of all money in transitu, it was, as he apprehended, subject to the order of the lords of the treasury there, they being in that case, as they were in every other, responsible for the exercise of their authority in the application of that money; for as the money was issued under the authority and by the direction of three of the lords of the treasury, the order was a legal order in itself, and as such binding on the Irish agent; and he agreed entirely with the noble lord, that the officers of the treasury were responsible to parliament for everything in execution of their trust, and that they should draw every thing to the advantage of the public, in the best manner circumstances would permit; and that if the course of exchange between this country could be applied to the benefit of Ireland, in the issue of any orders or otherwise, it was a part of their duty to make it applicable to the interest of the public as much as possible, unless some particular circumstances of some particular case, called for a relaxation from the general principle, which he apprehended to be the case now under consideration. The noble lord seemed to argue this matter as if there was an actual increase of salary to these officers, by the mode of payment which had been adopted in this case; if so, he should agree with the noble lord in the conclusion that the mode was improper; for it was beyond the competency of the Irish treasury to increase the salaries of these officers, the amount of which was specified by law. The act of parliament had said, what the salaries of these officers should be; but that was while they exercised their functions in Ireland, and when they were to be paid there; but in the case now before the house, the officers of govt., whose salaries were thus paid, had been taken from the natural sphere of action in which they had been usually called upon to move, and brought, for special purposes, to exercise their functions in this country, it was true, that application might be made to parliament, if any alteration was necessary, in the course of the pay- ment of these salaries; at the same time the noble lord would see, that the whole of the question arose, not from the amount of the salaries of these officers, but from the mode of paying them, in consequence of their function being altered and extended beyond their ordinary sphere of action; and the question was merely, whether an officer coming from Ireland to England to do his duty, shall be paid in England in English or in Irish currency; he would see, that it would be straining the statement to go beyond this, or to say that it was any thing like an increase of salary. The question was, whether as an officer did his duty in England, he should not be paid in English currency? If, indeed, he discharged the functions of his office in Ireland, it would be an advantage to him that he should be paid in English currency, and an advantage to which he would not be intitled; but if he was obliged to come here to perform that office, a country in which certainly he could not live cheaper than in Ireland, nor could he do his duty in it with more satisfaction or convenience to himself than in Ireland; he would put it to the house whether it was fair to call on such an officer to perform his duty with a diminution of salary; for that would be the case if he were to be paid here in Irish currency. This mode of payment was not, in fact, an increase of salary, but a mere relief from a tax to which these officers would be liable if this mode of payment was not adopted. The propriety of affording this relief from a tax in such a case, he maintained to be consonant to the spirit of the act of union, as well as to the general principles of justice. He maintained, that in some cases it had been allowed to those who were not compelled, as these officers were, to come from Ireland to this country—As to what had been said about the particular individuals, who took what was called the benefit of this mode of payment, (which, by the way, was no benefit, for it was only an exemption from a tax, which could not justly be imposed on them,) he could say of them that they were actuated by no motives but such as would do them no dishonour; neither was there any attempt to keep this matter a secret, no secrecy could attend it. He compared this mode of payment to that which was uniformly adopted in paying our troops abroad. The course of exchange was often such as to make it a matter of some expense to transmit the pay of officers and men, yet they had their whole pay, as if there was no such expense, and the public were always called upon to defray it; and, therefore, in his opinion, the question was, whether the commissioners of the treasury of Ireland were not called upon to consider of the propriety of relieving these officers from the operation of a tax, which would, unless they were relieved, attach upon them when they came to perform their duty in this country, and which would not attach on them if they performed it in Ireland? The noble lord said, the principle on which this mode of payment was adopted, ought to be general, or not adopted at all, and therefore the half-pay officers of Ireland, who were in this country, ought to be paid at par as well as the civil officers of the Irish govt., but there was a distinction between the two services. The half-pay officers of Ireland had their option, whether they would come here or remain in Ireland; but the civil officers were compelled to come here. He applied this to all these officers who came here, and he could not help thinking, that the house would be of opinion with him, that those of ficers had no more than justice done to them upon this occasion. On the whole matter he did not see any blame imputable to the commissioners of the Irish treasury upon this occasion, and as these resolutions were intended to be followed up by some other resolutions of disapprobation of what had been done, for which disapprobation there was no reason, therefore be moved the order of the day.

expressed his astonishment, after the statement which had been made by the noble lord who proposed the resolutions, that any member of that house could be found to stand so boldly forward to justify the practice to which those resolutions referred, and least of all did he expect such attempt at justification from the noble lord who had just sat down. How the noble lord could reconcile his doctrine on a former occasion, that there was no depreciation of the Irish currency, with his assertion of this evening, that the payment of the Irish civil officers resident in this country at par, was a relief from a tax, he was at a loss to conceive. There was, in the accounts laid before the house, sufficient ground for warranting the resolutions, without entering into any other causes. It appeared from these accounts, that the total of the sum paid at par, was 25,000l., while the total of the sums paid only in salaries did not exceed 12,000l. A difference so very material certainly called for explanation, and he hoped to hear some satisfactory reasons for the excess.

declared, that of all the questions which had for a long time come before the house, he thought the present one would prove the most difficult to be defended, and he was not disappointed in the sentiments which he previously entertained. The noble lord had, in fact, shewn the weakness of the cause he had to support by the weakness of the arguments which he had used. It had been said, and certainly no small stress had been laid upon the assertion, that a man's salary was not increased because he was relieved from the operation of a tax. He could not, for his own part, understand the difference between an increase of salary and an exemption from the payment of a tax. His Majesty might as well exempt a man of landed property from the payment of the land-tax, and what was that in fact but an increase of salary? The noble lord spoke of persons who were called here by order of their superiors; but when he examined the list of those who received payments at par, he was at a loss to discover who they were. He could not agree that the right hon. gent, on the opposite bench (Mr. Corry) had been called here by his superiors, and he wished to know, supposing that right hon. gent. not to be a member of parliament, what was the necessity which compelled him to reside in this country? With respect to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the noble lord gave up the matter at once, and said, he could not assign any cause for his coming. Was a judge, whose residence was in reality in Ireland, and who came to this country, to be allowed to plead in his justification, that he was called by his superiors? He could not admit there existed a greater duty to attend parliament, in those persons who were in office, than in those who were out of office, for that would be to admit, that the country gentlemen were to be taxed, and that his Majesty's servants were to be paid for their attendance in parliament. There existed no necessity whatever, with regard to the Lord Chancellor; for who had the right of ordering him to come to this country? Certainly none but the King, and even then there might be doubts upon that subject, as his Majesty had his own chancellor here. As to the question of remuneration, he could not avoid saying, that if the Irish officers were sent out of their country to discharge the duties of their respective offices, and it was deemed just to reward them for extraordinary services, they should have been rewarded, not in the manner which had been, adopted, but in a fair, open, and constitutional way. The noble lord had stated, by comparison, the case of the payment of the troops serving abroad; but then he did not take into his consideration what was absolutely material, that the deficiencies occasioned by the difference of exchange were made good to the officers and men by parliament, while, in the present case, they were made good by the lords of the Irish treasury. The noble lord had drawn a distinct line between the claims of the half-pay officers, and those who were paid at par; yet the noble lord was not, at that moment, aware, that the late chancellor of Ireland possessed no better claim than those very half-pay officers, who have suffered so much in consequence of the state of the exchange. The chancellor was, in fact, a half-pay officer; for he had 4 or 5000l. a year for having formerly done the duty of Speaker of the House of Lords; yet his claims were freely allowed, and he received his salary at par. If remuneration appeared a just and equitable measure, he was desirous to have the proofs fairly brought forward, and the services of the officers of the Irish govt. resident in this country, properly rewarded, but he could not consent to make any exceptions in their favour, unless upon principles altogether constitutional. It was undeniable that their salaries had been clearly fixed, and at the same time made liable to all the taxes, deductions, and chances, as those to which other officers under the Irish govt., resident in Ireland, might eventually be subject. He wished to know on what principle it was that one officer, resident in Dublin, should receive only 90l. and another in London should be paid the whole 100l. When he considered the duties to be performed by those whose names appeared upon the list, he felt that they did not appear prima facie to be called over to London for the purpose of performing the functions of their respective offices. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the counsel for the commissioners of the revenue, or the customer of the port of Dublin, with several more, be considered in that point of view? It was, he readily admitted, not altogether impossible that they might be called away for that purpose, but as the house was ignorant of the circumstances, he thought all the information which could be obtained on the subject should be laid before parliament. He should, therefore, vote against the order of the day.

said, he thought this was a question upon which there could not be much difference of opinion. The honourable gentleman did not appear to him to be quite accurate in his statement of the facts of the case; if it was really an increase of salary, he should think that the conduct of the Irish treasury was not to be justified, but it was no such thing. The of- ficers employed under the Irish government, who would have received 100 l. Irish if they had remained in Ireland, did not receive 100 l. British; they only received 92 l. British, which was equal to 100 l. Irish; and he begged it to be remembered that those officers and those salaries were all established before the Union, when it could not be in contemplation that it would be necessary to bring them over to England. If these officers were, in addition to the inconvenience they suffered by being brought over to England, to lose by the exchange, instead of receiving 92 l. they would, in fact, only receive 82 l, which, he was sure, could never be intended. The honourable gentleman se med to suppose that these officers received the whole of their salaries in this country; that was not the case; they only received that part of it which became due during their residence in England. The honourable gent. seemed to think that the officers, called over here upon public business, ought to have an allowance; the fact was, they only had their travelling expenses allowed to them, and that was only granted to those in inferior situations. The whole question resolved itself into this, whether officers who were brought here to discharge a public duty, ought or ought not to receive the same salary they would have received if they had remained in Ireland? It appeared to him that no doubt could be entertained upon the subject, and therefore he should vote for the motion of his noble friend.

supported the original motion, upon the ground that this, which he considered as an increase of their salaries, was entirely defrayed by Ireland, whereas, as it was a part of the joint expenditure of the empire, England ought to defray the proportion stipulated by the Union.

observed, that the noble lord had laid down a proposition in his motion, which was of a general nature: but that all the other gentlemen, who had followed on that side, had departed from the general principle, he had stated, and made particular distinctions. He should not enter into the necessity arising from any particular instance. He could see nothing in the removal of any gentleman from Ireland to England on the business of his office, that ought to operate to the diminution of his salary. When he was called here he had his duties to discharge, and he ought to have the full amount of his salary, the same as if he had remained in Ireland. Upon the principle attempted to be established, persons concerned in East-India affairs might be sent to Calcutta to receive their salaries. So that if a person were ordered to go to York, and could not get his salary from London, but at a great expense attending the transfer, he was to be a sufferer. But what was exchange but the expense attending the transfer of money; and why should the civil officer sustain that expense, if he did not voluntary shift his residence? The learned member then proceeded to shew that the case of half pay officers did not apply in the present instance. Augmentation of salary, he admitted would be unjustifiable, but that was vastly different from the mere payment of the same identical salary, only on a different spot.

observed, that what had fallen from the last learned member, though very ingenious, did not strictly apply to the point in debate. The salary of an individual must be paid from the establishment whence it should be drawn He should wish to know whether, as this was a matter which might operate in various ways, that, if actually a profit were to be drawn from a change of situation of this sort, it was to be understood that a deduction to that amount was to be made? After the Union it must have been seen, that such circumstances were fairly to be anticipated, though they might appear to some in the light of casual evils. But, whatever they were, this was not the form and mode in which remuneration, be it ever so necessary, was to be given. It did not appear to him, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually knew the true state of the case on which they had been debating. He had said, it was only a power of issuing to certain persons part of their salaries during their residence here. If it could be shewn that they had received no more than their fair proportion, still on the face of the order for Mr. Wickham, it did appear an unlimited one, for it gave credit at the rate of 4,360 l. per ann., and the payments were to be charged to the treasury accounts. Here then was a general credit for that gentleman to draw upon. Now when a certain important debate occurred respecting Ireland, he was not here, but, as it appeared, in Yorkshire; yet, according to this order, he had liberty to draw if he chose. Here was the power. Was this any kind of check on the mode of transacting public business? And Colonel Loftus, a commissioner of the treasury, was actually here a whole year. Did he attend here as commissioner of the treasury? Let ministers bring the question fairly before the house, and arrange the system. He could have wished to hear something from the learned gentleman concerning the power of giving orders before the money was in the exchequer. One thing he certainly did hope and expect from the present administration; and that was, an adherence to the strict forms of the house, and a restoration of such as had, from circumstances, been trenched upon; but he was sorry to observe, that he could not recollect the time when they were so much neglected.

said, that had the learned gentleman, in adverting to what he said, examined the case of Mr. Wickham, he would have found that the very terms shewed they did not warrant his comments. In page 12 he would have found that the credit was to be given at the rate of 4 360 l. and that at page 5 he would have seen that his predecessor drew only the smaller sum of 4,029 l. stated as paid in 1803, but that included the total of 2 years; not, however brought forward in 1803. He did not believe that Mr. Wickham was a person likely to depart, in that respect, from his predecessor's example.

rose, only to advert to what had fallen from a learned gentleman opposite (the Master of the Rolls). With the general principle which that learned gentleman had laid down, he was ready in some measure to give his concurrence; and had this general principle been the question now before the house, he would in all probability, have given it his vote. But because such a principle had not been before the house, and because it was not warranted by any legislative authority, he would therefore oppose the present practice, and vote for the original motion.

said, that among many weighty arguments, which determined him to vote for the original motion, there were two, which he wished particularly to state and to insist on, because they were of a plain and obvious quality, and not liable to be perplexed and confounded by technical skill or sophistical distinctions. To these, Sir, I expect to hear a plain and rational answer, which hitherto has not been attempted. In the first place, Sir, I hold it to be a principle inseparable from the uses of aid government, and from the duties of this government more than any other, that the personal interest of every individual trusted with power should, in all cases, be one and the same with the interest of the community. If a general calamity should exist, or a general burden is to be endured, to the remedy or relief of which the labour, the industry and the skill of persons in high office ought to be unremittingly applied, it is not wise, it is not, safe to exempt such persons from their share in the general pressure or suffering that falls upon all the rest. You take away a principal motive or stimulus to such persons to exert themselves in the public service, when you tell them, that, whether they neglect their duty or not, they are sure to be borne harmless in the receipt of their own income. Least of all, is it prudent or safe to suffer such parties to form the measure and to distribute the amount of their own relief? But, even if the contrary were true, if it could be maintained that persons in high and lucrative offices ought to be specially and exclusively exempted from any share in a public suffering, still the course which has been taken ought not to be endured. It is asserted that the payments in question have not been secret, have not been clandestine. My answer is, that they have been made not only without the authority, but without the knowledge of parliament. I, for one, never heard of the fuel, until it was introduced by the noble lord on this side. If the thing be proper, it ought to be done by a vote of this house, or in some other regular parliamentary way. Whenever the general principle of reimbursing individuals for losses on exchange of salaries comes to be considered, you will have other cases infinitely more pressing to provide for. I shall state only one, which I think could hardly be resisted, and which has frequently occurred. I mean that of an English regiment disbanded in Ireland, and of which the officers, all English, are compelled by their situation, circumstances, and connexions to reside in England on their Irish half-pay. Out of that pittance they lose ten pen cent. on the remittance from Ireland. Would you refuse to indemnify such persons, while the principal officers of govt. are permitted to reimburse themselves out of the public purse? Now, Sir, I ask for information on a point of parliamentary construction, in which I think the honour, because I am sure the duty of this house, is essentially concerned. Supposing the motion of the noble lord should be set aside, with such facts brought into the view of the house, and so immediately connected with our first duty as guardians of the public purse, and that this should be done by an expedient so disgraceful, and I believe in such a case so unprecedented, in the proceedings of parliament, as that of moving the order of the day, in what state will this business be left? Will it not be concluded that the house renounces its duty, and abdicates its jurisdiction over a money question? Will it, or will it not be taken, by the parties who have hitherto acted in their own behalf, by their own authority, for an acknowledgment of the power they have so assumed? What is to check or to limit them in the future exercise of that discre- tion, when parliament, with the case before them, refuses to inquire into the past, or even to lay down any rule for the future? Certainly the gentlemen who have taken good care of themselves, may act with more reserve, and less indulgence to the claims of others full as good as their own. Or they may choose and select the objects of their favour. I ask, is it fit that such a question should be left undecided? In fact, I fear it will amount to a decision in favour of the abuse, and furnish a pretence for other practices of the same nature. When a house of commons refuses to inquire into an unauthorised application of public money, and when the fact is not denied, it gives an approbation to the thing done, and makes it a precedent for greater abuses.

conceived the objections much magnified. More than law allowed, he thought, had not been done. Ministers might have paid the Irish salaries in cash, which would have still been more valuable. It would be better to apply the time of the house in devising a remedy for the radical evil, the present rate of exchange between this country and Ireland.

, upon the principle that 100,000l. received in this country and sent to Ireland would be worth 110,000l. opposed the system that was now acted on, as giving an additional income to those that were so paid, while others must necessarily labour under a deficiency to the same amount. He argued, that whenever either civil or military officers should be on their duty, there was no question but they were to be paid by the treasury of the country by which they were employed.

had often observed in the course of his parliamentary life, that when gent. had no good grounds to rest upon, they ran to general principles, which seemed to be the case to night with the hon. member opposite. But if it was fashionable to recur to general principles, he should beg to mention one, namely, that no money shall be issued without coming to parliament for it. It had been proved, that this money had not been legally issued. The papers shewed, that one commissioner had ordered the issue, and that it had been paid accordingly. Every sum subtracted from the public purse was in fact so much expense incurred. The noble lord had said, the Irish treasury was in London; but did any body who had read the act of parliament remain ignorant that it was necessary to have the King's sign manual, or an act of parliament to authorise an issue? Was there any sort of authority for this transaction? The noble lord had said, that an act of parliament was an operose transaction, that is to say, that to act legally was an operose transaction, whereas to act illegally, made a short cut, and so the noble lord chose to run post haste to the treasury in London. All the revenues of Ireland were, since the Union, applicable, in the first instance, to the payment of the national debt, and, secondly, to the general purposes of that country. If ministers could thus pay officers, it would never appear how Ireland was subjected to expenses; whereas, if the thing was done legally, fifteen-seventeenths of the money would be paid by England. He called upon ministers to treat this question like men, in a manly manner; to confess they had done an illegal act. Let them go into a committee, but not blink the question. If otherwise, let them now have their majority if they could, but let them depend upon it, that this question would come before them in so many shapes, that they must meet it at last.

rose to explain, and was proceeding to reply to some observations of the last speaker, when he was called to order by

, who insisted that the noble lord was not speaking to order, but in reply.

begged to adduce an instance which came within his own knowledge. When he was connected with the revenue of Ireland, the counsellor for the commissioners had only 100l. a year, whereas in the papers now before the house, he perceived, that that hon. gent, had received 900l. in the course of three years. If this additional sum was considered as a compensation, he saw no reason why such gentlemen should also avail themselves of the profits derived from the present rate of exchange.

, from having been so particularly alluded to, found himself under the necessity of rising. It was true, he said, that he had received the sum mentioned, during the three years alluded to; but at the same time he had spent in England more than twice that sum, drawn from other funds, which were subject to all the inconveniencies of the present rate of exchange. He contended, that the Irish officers who resided either from choice, or from the calls of public duty, spent in general much more in London than their salaries amounted to. He objected in the strongest terms to the original motion as unnecessary and unjust.

declined entering at any length into a discussion of the question before the house, but stated, in a few words, that he believed that, ministers had acted fairly and conscientiously, and, from the whole of what he had heard that night, or knew before, he could not see that there was any ground for the house entering into the inquiry.

referred to several observations which had been made by different hon. members on the other side of the house, and said, that the arguments which the noble lord on the same side of the house with himself, had advanced with so much ability, were so completely unanswered, that be should not presume to do away the impression they had made upon the house by any attempt on his part to repeat them. One hon. gent. indeed had appealed to the prudence and discretion of the house, and then asked if it was necessary for the house to enter into the merits of the case? He had concluded with inviting the house rather to blink the question. What! when the house is told that there has been an illegal issue of the public money, should parliament be told, that instead of looking into the case, they should not exercise that right which the people have committed to their charge, but rather be inclined to blink the question? An assertion had been made in the course of the debate, that the lords of the Treasury had a legal authority for the issuing of public money. No doubt they had. But could that be supposed to be any argument against the resolutions which had been submitted to the house? Neither his noble friend, nor any other person who spoke in the course of the debate, had denied the existence of such an authority. They only objected to what appeared to them to be an illegal exercise of that authority, in the paying away the money of the public in a manner for which they had no vote or authority from that house.

complained, that it was unfair for one gent. to say that there was fallacy in an argument, and another gent. to say that no argument had been advanced. No one person had pretended to say that there was a great sum of money sunk, squandered, or applied to improper uses, and that therefore it was evident that his Majesty's servants had acted from a corrupt and dirty motive. He had no doubt, that if the principle was admitted, and that it was stated that one or two persons had, by mistake been included in the payment who were not entitled to it—he had no doubt that then the noble lord opposite to him, who had spoken with so much ability, would be satisfied as to the propriety of the conduct of ministers. The Irish nation had funds in this country in consequence of the intimacy which subsisted between the two islands; and would any one say that, when they had a public officer on business here, the money should not be paid here to that officer, but be sent back to the Treasury of Ireland, to do that mighty piece of justice of putting money in the public purse at the expense of the individual? As no case of inquiry appeared to him to be made out, he should vote for the order of the day, as the most parliamentary and reasonable course of proceeding.

declared, that his main objection was to the money not being left at the disposal of parliament. No matter what the sum was, the principle was the same to parliament, and he was surprised to hear a right hon. and learned gent. opposite to him (the Attorney General) say, that the most parliamentary way of acting was, for the house to proceed to the order of the day.

said, the expressions of some hon. members had been objected to. But the house would recollect, that he had asserted that the act in itself was not legal; no person had controverted that. An observation had been made, that a servant should be paid his travelling expenses, but there was no argument in that, as no person gave in such an estimate as travelling expenses to parliament, and, if that was to be urged against inquiry, no one could say but that travelling expenses had been paid beside. As to the supposition of sending money to Ireland for the purpose of reducing the amount, there was a fallacy in it as an argument. It indeed would be a work of supererogation to do so; but why not pay the officers of the public to the same amount here, as their Irish money would come to if it was paid in Ireland where it was due?—As an hon. bart. (Sir J. Newport) had observed, it was an unwarrantable distribution of the public money.

The question being then put on Lord Castlereagh's motion for the order of the day, the house divided, when there appeared