On the order of the day for the third reading of the bill for the better supplying of Market Towns in Ireland with water, sir George Hill opposed it, on the ground, that it would have a partial operation, and subject many persons to rates who did not stand in need of such accommodation. He should make no objection if the heavy expense was to fall exclusively on those who wished for it; but, considering that it would he burthen-some as well as unnecessary in general, he moved, that the bill be read a third time this day three months. Mr. Barnard and sir W. Burroughs spoke in favour of the bill; and Mr. French, sir W. Elford, and Mr. M'Naghten, against it. Mr. Foster considered the measure to be of considerable importance, and such as should not be hastily adopted, as a general act, meant only for local advantage, might ultimately tend to the embarrassment of the whole country. He should therefore recommend it to the hon. baronet (sir G. Hill) to withdraw his motion, for the purpose of postponing the third reading to this day. fortnight, when gentlemen might be better prepared to understand it. To this, Mr. M'Naghten objected, that in the course of a fortnight many Irish members would have occasion to return home; and, after some desultory conversation, the house divided on sir G. Hill's amendment; for it 29; against, it 27; majority 2. The bill was then ordered to be read a third time this day fortnight.

rose to bring forward his promised motion, for an account of the secret service money disbursed by the Irish government, from the year 1793 to the present time. He thought the subject one to which it was highly necessary to call the attention of parliament, as a head of public expenditure, under which there had been no investigation whatever for the last seven or eight years. The disbursement of money by the government of this country, under a similar head, had for a long series of years eluded enquiry: though frequently, proposed, it was often rejected, like many other salutary objects, until at length the perseverance of the house of commons prevailed, and the secret service money was reduced to public investigation, so far, at least, as it was admissible for a minister to disclose the objects of its application. Rumour had very strongly stated, that within the last few years very large sums of the public money had been disbursed under this head, though by an act of parliament, the sum of secret service money was limited to 5,000l. annually, except in cases for the purposes of suppressing insurrection or rebellion; but when it was known that the pension list of Ireland had doubled, and now amounted to 120,000l. it was high time for parliament to do its duty, by examining into the branch of expenditure to which he alluded. The pension act, by the 9th and 10th section, provided that no more than 5,000l. per annum should be granted by the crown upon that establishment, until the pension list was reduced below a limited sum; but there was no guard against the grants of the lord-lieutenant. The union was a measure which would, no doubt, hereafter lead to many great and important purposes, when the minds of the people should be awakened to its advantages. He did not deny, that the object of his motion was, to make disclosures, which, to some persons, might not be altogether agreeable. It had not been concealed, that a vast sum of money was paid, for the purpose of bringing about the union, which was held out as a measure calculated to produce the most important and beneficial consequences, which, he was sorry to say, were not yet very likely to result from it. Ever since the year 1793, it was notorious that no account Was given to parliament of the disbursements for secret services; and he was sorry a noble lord who had been called upon to refute them was not in his place to wipe off the reproach from himself—[a general laugh, lord Castlereagh being in his seat]. He begged the noble lord's pardon, and hoped he would avail himself of being present to clear himself. He hoped that the house would now pay more attention than formerly to the disbursements of Ireland, as the English members were aware, that our country had to defray two-seventeenths of the expences. The expences of some, though not all, of the proportions in Ireland, were now before the house, amounting to the sum of 110,000l. and his motion would be for a secret committee to enquire into that expenditure. On looking into the journals, he found a precedent for his motion, in the reign of William and Mary, Nov. 1688, when a motion was passed, calling for an account of the money paid for secret services to members of parliament, and was presented by Mr. Secretary Harley, in the December following. As he did not expect to have the right of the public, to know what they actually did pay, disputed, he moved, "that a secret committee, of 13 members, exclusively of such members as held any public offices at the will of the crown, be appointed to enquire into the disbursements of secret service money in Ireland, from the year 1793, to the end of 1804, inclusive, excepting such sums as may have been paid for the detection of any conspiracies, and distinguishing their respective amounts, and the names and services of the persons to whom they were paid."

said, that if the hon. bart. merely wanted an account of the money laid out for secret service, there could be but one objection to it, and that was, that it was unnecessary, because the amount of the money to be so expended was limited, and defined by act of parliament. But the hon. bart. seemed to think that there were other suns of money so applied, over and above the sum allowed by law: if that were the case, if the hon. bart. could bring forward any fact of that kind, it certainly would be well worthy the attention of parliament. But it certainly appeared to him unnecessary to go into an enquiry until some fact was stated to shew the expediency of that enquiry.—The act of 1793, to which the hon. bart. had alluded, followed the principle of Mr. Burke's bill in this country, and limited the amount of money to be expended for secret service to a small sum; and he supposed it would not be denied that it would be impossible for any government to be carried on without the power of disposing of some secret service money, without being obliged afterwards to make public the way in which it had been laid out. In the year 1741, an attempt was made in this country to enquire into the application of secret service money. It was admitted in the report of the committee appointed upon that occasion, that it was absolutely necessary that government should have the application of a certain sum for secret service money, without being obliged to explain the way in which it was expended, because that would defeat the very purpose of it; but it was stated that the sums so laid out appeared to be enormous. Afterwards, by the bill brought in by Mr. Burke, the sum to be so expended by government was limited to 100,000l. a year. In Ireland the sum was still more limited; it was fixed at 5,000l. a year; and he believed the hon. bart. would find it difficult to convince the house that such an expenditure could be applied to the bad purposes to which he had alluded. But he trusted that gentlemen would recollect the situation in which Ireland had stood for some years, and he was sure they could not for a moment contend, that it would be proper to call upon government to come before parliament and explain how every farthing of secret service money had been laid out during that period. There was one head of expenditure, called "secret pensions," and it must be obvious to the house, that government could not expose the names, of the persons to whom they were paid without exposing them to ruin. He wished to observe, that it was not the practice in this country to keep any memorandum of the disposal of secret service money after it had once been approved of by his majesty: he did not know whether this Was the practice in Ireland, but certainly a contrary one might lead to the most dangerous consequences.—Mr. Vansittart then read the act limiting the secret service money to 5000l. a year, and contended, that it was evidently implied by the act, that no account was to be rendered of the expenditure of that sum. The necessary security was obtained, not by having an account published of the mode in which the money had been expended, but by limiting the amount of it. The money laid out had all been accounted for in the way prescribed by law, and the hon. bart, might, if he thought proper, move for papers, shewing the time when the respective secretaries had passed their accounts, With regard to what had fallen from the hon. bart. respecting pensions, it was wholly unconnected with the present subject, and therefore he would not occupy the time of the house with any observations upon it at present. The hon. bart. had referred, to some proceedings in the reign of king William; but they were of a very different nature from the account now called for, because there was now an account of the sums expended upon the table. The hon. bart. had also alluded to the sum expended in state prosecutions; this certainly was a subject of regret, but could not be matter of surprise, that such a sum had been expended in four Years, in country in which there had recently been a rebellion, and since that a serious insurrection, and where it must be confessed there still remained a great deal of lurking treason. Upon these grounds he must resist the motion, and really if he could account for the expenditure of the secret service money, he would not do it, from a conviction of the fatal consequences that might ensue.

also opposed the motion, and observed, that certainly the noble lord (Castlereagh) did carry the measure of union which the hon. baronet had so highly praised, and admitted to be of such high importance to the empire; and it was rather extraordinary that an enquiry should now be moved under the head of secret service, which seemed invidiously to glance at the carrying of that measure. Certainly large sums had been found necessary to be disbursed in the secret service of that country, in order to detect and frustrate a jacobinical conspiracy, which had its origin so early as 1790, and the application of secret service money, under the direction and talents of Mr. Edward Cooke, then secretary in the civil department, was most effectual for the purpose.—The question being loudly called for,

rose to reply. He observed, that as to secret service money disbursed for the suppression of rebellion, the ministers were not called on to account, as that was specially excepted by the act of parliament; but this was no reason why no enquiry should be made respecting the expenditure of the sum not so granted. He did not wish to disguise the object of his enquiry. Rumour had very strongly stated, that very large sums, to the amount of more than 25 times five thousand pounds, had been expended by the government of Ireland of very late years, in a very improper and unconstitutional way; and to investigate this was the object he had in view. If the house rejected this enquiry, particularly the sums lavished for the purposes of the union, they would answer the public call in the same manner that sir Wm, D'Avenant related of lord Stair, who, when called upon for an account of the sums paid in quieting the Highlands of Scotland, replied, "the money is all spent, the Highlands are quiet, and that is the best account that I can give you," In the same manner, the noble lord opposite him might say, "the money is gone, the union is accomplished, and you may now be satisfied, for that is the bes account I can give you."—The house the divided on the motion; for it 67; against it 93; majority 46.

The order of the day being read for going into a committee on the Stipendiary Curates' bill,

opposed the bill as unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional in its principle, and unwarrantably disposing of the property of beneficed clergymen, who, from illness, infirmity, or other unavoidable causes, might become non-resident; in which case, at the option or caprice of the diocesan, a gentleman was liable, by the bill, to be deprived of one-fifth of the Value of his whole living, to enrich a curate appointed by the bishop to do duty in his parish. It would not be denied that the revenues of the church were as much private property as any other tenures, subject only to the condition that the clerical duties should be properly performed. If the incumbents, therefore; were not culpable, their rights should not be affected; and if they found proper substitutes to perform their duty when circumstances rendered them incapable of doing so themselves, it was as much as parliament had a right to expect of them. By the law hitherto in force, the power of the bishop was limited to an allowance of 50l. or at most 75l. to curates, according to circumstances, and he did not hear that any application had been made by curates, stating, that they had not a proper allowance, or by bishops, that they had not sufficient power to grant it to them. There was no proof either that the incumbents did not provide proper persons to perform the necessary functions; and he would therefore ask, what occasion there was for this bill? If the measure went upon an erroneous principle, he was aware of nothing which could do away that objection. This innovation went to no less than to give to curates three times the salary that they were allowed before, and infinitely more than was necessary for providing substitutes. By this bill, the power of the bishop would be exorbitant; for if he thought it right to have more than one curate, he might appropriate one-third of the whole income of the incumbent. There were, he understood, some rectories of 3,000l. a year, and surely it would be preposterous to deprive the person who held such a living of 1,000l. a year, for the purposes of curacy. The legislators had already amerced the incumbents for non-residence, and it was rather too hard to lay this second fine upon them. He strongly objected to such decisive authority being given to bishops, and the more so, as the bill left no appeal whatever from their fiat, but to the archbishop of Canterbury. If such a principle was proceeded upon, a bishop within his diocese would become a more uncontroulable despot than any first consul or emperor of the French. It was defective also, as it gave no security that the curate thus amply provided for, should himself be resident upon his cure; it did not authorise the bishops in that respect to do good, and gave them every power of doing injury to the incumbent; it did not go to accomplish the object that was professedly proposed by it; and, if it was thought right to institute an ecclesiastical reform, it should be done openly, and not in so indirect a manner. He considered the. measure to he connected with circumstances of extreme cruelty, in obliging the vicar to make great sacrifices to the detriment of his family, when grown old in the service of the church. The parliament had, some time since, decided, that a man who took to priests orders, could not, afterwards, turn his attention to other pursuits; and, as the present measure would tend to deprive youth of its prospects, and age of its support, he should resist the motion for the speaker's leaving the chair.

defended the bill, conceiving it to he but just and necessary that those incumbents who did not perform the duty which their situation required of them, should be obliged to pay the curates who performed that duty for them. That was simply the object of the bill, and therefore he approved of it. Any faults it contained might, in his opinion, be easily corrected in the committee.

said, he had, on a former occasion, shortly stated his reasons for not approving this bill, and he would now, as briefly as possible, repeat his objections to it. He thought it was an attack and infringement on the property of the clergy, which the house had not a right to make. He thought also, that vesting a power in the bishop to give away so much of the revenues of the rector, as one-fifth of the value of his living, was subjecting the more opulent members of the church to a too great dependence on the bishops For these reasons he should object to the speaker's leaving the chair.

spoke in favour of the bill. He said, the house, the glebe, the tithes, and other property, were not the objects of the bill; the real objects were, the du ties of the rector, and these were very necessary to be attended to. Nothing could so much insure their due performance, as the residence of the rector or vicar; and if he did not reside there, there should certainly be a regular and ample provision for the person who officiated in his place, and performed his sacred duty; which did not merely consist in reading prayers, preaching, visiting the sick, marrying persons, &c. but also in keeping up a respectable and social hospitality, and distributing alms in the neighbourhood. It had been objected, that the provisions in this bill were of a novel nature, and the noble lord had said it was a reform in the clerical system. The hon. members, however, who supposed this, were certainly mistaken. In very old times, indeed, this power had been vested in the bishops. As it would be easy to obviate many objections, and to render the bill more agreeable to all parties in a committee, he should certainly vote for the speaker's leaving the chair.

said, he thought there were some parts of the bill which were highly objectionable; but as these might be modified, obviated, or totally altered, he certainly should vote that the bill go to a committee.

said, that he did not rise to oppose going into a committee, but what he had to say was applicable rather to the high duties attached to the spiritual functions of the clergy, and to guard against their violation, than to interfere with the temporalities of their benefices. He was aware that some difficulty and embarrassment was involved with the subject that he should mention, yet in a choice of difficulties and evils it was ever prudent to choose the least. His object was to empower the bishop, in certain cases, to appoint a stipendiary curate, ad interim, where the misconduct of any beneficed person should seem to demand it. It was painful to him to particularize the circumstances on which he founded his motion for these observations, but it was but too true, that in the county in which he resided, bills of indictment had been preferred against three clergymen, within a short space of time, in the same year, for attempts to commit offences at which human nature revolts. It was to empower the bishop to appoint a curate when such charges came to the length of an indictment, that he wished to see a clause introduced in to this or some other bill; and he wished rather that it should be thus collaterally introduced, than make it the subject of a bill in itself.

was against the bill. He thought it would diminish the value of livings, and it was therefore a direct violation of property. Another objection to it with him was, that it very much increased the power of the bishops. It had been said there was no danger with them of that being abused. Ha had as high and respectful an opinion of the bishops of this country as any man could have, and believed them to be very good men, and highly honourable characters. He should, however, vote against the speaker leaving the chair.

said he highly approved the bill, though there were some parts of it which he hoped to see improved in the committee.

denied the principle contended for by the noble lord, and the other opposers of the bill, that the property of a beneficed clergyman in his living was of the same nature as his landed estate. Such, indeed, Was the property of the advowson, but such was the jealousy of the law on this point, that for the patron to sell the next presentation to that advowson, would be a simoniacal bargain. The living, on the contrary, was to be considered rather as a freehold tenure held upon certain conditions of service; but he should like to know where was the injustice or the tyranny in obliging a man to pay another for the performance of that service which he did not choose to perform himself, and upon the condition of which he held the tenure. The tenure of a clergyman in his living was also held upon the indispensable condition of rendering services inseparably connected with the religion, the morality, and the loyalty of the country. To whom must the country look for the support of loyalty amongst the people, but to the resident clergymen of the established church, who, by their own doctrine and example, have at all times so eminently promoted the cause of loyalty amongst their parishioners? A bill had been recently passed by the house, enforcing the residence of the clergy under the direction of the bishops, to whom it gave extensive powers; which powers this bill restricted rather than enlarged; for it only authorized the bishops to assign one-fifth of the income of the living, where it exceeded 400l. a year, to the maintenance of a curate to do the duty of a clergyman who did not chuse to do it himself, or provide any other resident clergyman to do it. Now, what portion of the whole mass of the beneficed clergy in England would this go to affect? Why, not a fortieth part: for a great number of the beneficed clergy already stood excused from residence on account of deaneries, chaplaincies, fellowships, and other duties elsewhere.—The question being called for, a division took place; ayes 57; noes 23; majority 34.—The house having resolved itself into the committee, a conversation took place on the clause respecting the allowance to be made to curates, and Mr. Creevey submitted a proposition to alter the scale of allowance; upon which a division took place; ayes 11; noes 47; majority 36.—Adjourned