, pursuant to his notice, brought forward his motion relative to the compensation given to sir George Shee, to whom the place of receiver-general of taxes in Ireland had been granted in reversion in the year 1802, sir Henry Cavendish being at that time in possession of the office. The right hon. baronet entered into a variety of details to shew the compensation was higher than necessary, and concluded by moving—"That it was the opinion of that House, that the grant of compensation to the receiver-general in Ireland was in itself reprehensible, and a dereliction of duty in the Irish government."

spoke at length in justification of the Irish government, respecting the transaction alluded to, and contended that the compensation was not more than sir G. Shee was justly entitled to. He also vindicated the share his brother lord Wellington had in the transaction, from the charges made by the right hon. bart.

explained the manner in which the balances of sir Henry Cavendish had been discharged.

felt it due, in justice to sir Henry Cavendish, to state, that his balances had been paid off with the greatest punctuality.

bore equal testimony to the celerity with which the balances of sir Henry Cavendish had been paid in.

thought it a monstrous position to maintain, that any one had a legal right to use the public money for their private gain.

quoted an observation of lord Kenyon to the same effect. He really thought that in that House there was generally too great a solicitude for the interest of individuals, and too great a disregard for the interest of the public. He thought that it was too much the custom of government on both sides of the water to consider offices more as things created for the benefit of the individual who held them, than for the good of the public. He thought no man had a right to claim compensation merely for abstaining from abuses.

thought the hon. gent. had spoken too harshly of persons who followed the custom of their predecessors in office. If any great severity or rigour was to be used with respect to receivers of public money, they should at least have fair notice of it, and their characters ought not to be branded for acting in a manner that they conceived legal, and according to the custom of their predecessors in office. He attacked with great warmth the opinion delivered by the hon. gent., that government considered offices more with respect to the individual who was to get them, than the inte- rest of the country. He thought this the severest attack he had ever heard in that House against men in office, and it came with peculiar severity from an authority so respectable as the hon. gent. For his part, he disclaimed any such idea of offices, and would confess himself unworthy of continuing a moment in office, if he did entertain such an idea.

, in explanation, said, that he spoke of government in general, and did not mean either to allude to the right hon. gent., nor to the chief governor of Ireland, the duke of Richmond, whom he most highly respected.

thought, that by the strict law no compensation was due.

said, that when he came into office, it was a few days before the death of sir H. Cavendish, and he found there was a balance of no less than 330,000l. in his hands. This balance he, of course, felt it his duty immediately to call for. Sir George Shee, who was afterwards appointed to the place, was no political friend of his, and he could have no reason to propose the compensation except a sense of duty. The fact was, that independent of the use of public money, there was, by old custom, a per centage given to the receiver-general for the sums he received from the collectors. It was for this per centage, that he advised the compensation, which was 1,300l. a year; whereas the per centage produced double.

A long conversation then took place, in which Mr. G. Johnstone, Mr. W. Fitzgerald, the Solicitor-general, Mr. Marryatt, Mr. Long, and Mr. Wilberforce, took a share.

, in his reply, utterly denied that there was any old custom even about the per centage. As the place had been abolished in 1792 by statute, on its revival it must be considered as a new office.

The House then divided—For the motion 48; Against it 99; Majority 51.

rose to object to the motion. He knew he was taking an unpopular side of the question. It was said the opposition Were disappointed at finding the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed laying on no new taxes, and were disposed to harrass ministers, on that account. For himself, he could say that he did not oppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he laid on no new taxes, but because to avoid it he resorted to a new system—a system never heard of before without giving good and sufficient reasons for so doing. The project of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that 980,000l. for the service of this year should be charged on the consolidated fund. The grounds on which he had defended this plan were, that having in 1808 laid on taxes which produced upwards of 1,200,000l. instead of 106,000l. which they were expected to produce, he thought he had a right to apply the surplus to the service of this year. The right hon. gent., it was true, had called the attention of the House to the subject in a particular manner, and desired them to examine and criticise it as it might deserve. This was what he wished to do. Whatever trenched upon the consolidated fund was at war with the principle of raising as large a sum as possible within the present year. That principle had been approved of by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Addington, and lord Henry Petty, and it remained for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to break in upon it. The consequences of such an innovation might be of a serious nature. So averse was Mr. Addington to impoverishing the consolidated fund, that in 1802, rather than do it he laid on new taxes; and the late administration, rather than trench on that fund, had incurred the unpopularity of raising the property tax from six and a fourth to ten per cent. The consolidated fund was established by Mr. Pitt in 1786, and it did him great credit. In all his difficulties, and they were very great, he never laid violent hands on the consolidated fund, but resorted to any expedient to preserve that inviolate. He (Mr. T.) did not know whether the surplus of the consolidated fund amounted to four, five, or six millions; but the surplus should every year bear some proportion to the taxation. If, in 1792, the surplus amounted to two millions and a half, it was not extravagant now to expect it would be five millions. Of this however he had no very sanguine expectations. He begged the House always to bear in mind, that the produce of the taxes which now swelled the consolidated fund would not be so great in times of peace. He thought it his duty therefore to implore the House to consider what they did, before they by any act diminished the consolidated fund. He would take a view of the last five years to see how it stood. In 1805 and 6 there Were real and efficient taxes laid on. In 1807, 8, and 9, there were hardly any. The charges on the consolidated fund in those five years amounted to 5,732,000l. The produce of the taxes to meet those charges was 6,437,500l. leaving a surplus of no more than 706,000l. But it might be said why did he select those five years? He was willing to take from the beginning of the war, but from a paper before the House it appeared there was a deficiency of 314,000l. in the years 1805 and 6. To make good that deficiency they were obliged to go to the surplus of 1808, so that taking 980,000l. from the consolidated fund, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be found that there was but a surplus of 706,000l. to meet this new charge. From the establishment of the fund in 1786, there never before was so low an excess of taxes carried to the fund in five years. If he were to take the state of the consolidated fund from 1802, the surplus would be 1,287,000l. From this, deducting 970,000l. as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the total of the remaining surplus would be 317,000l. To such a proposition he thought no rational man could agree, as it was evident the consolidated fund could not bear the charge. Every loan bill had a clause charging the payment of the loan on the consolidated fund, thus giving security to the lenders on that fund. The project of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he contended, went to evade the 26th of his present majesty, and place the sinking fund in jeopardy. A variety of other evils would arise from entertaining the project of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the whole surplus arose from taxes laid on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not admit that he had a right so to draw on the consolidated fund, though, in that case, he would have a show of reason on his side, which, in the present instance, was wanting. As a man, he would refer the subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself; and if he did not come down (as a member of parliament,) and say the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought rather to lay on taxes to the amount of 750,000l. he (Mr. T.) was as much mistaken as ever he was in his life. He did not wish that new taxes should be laid on, he wished some other means of meeting the exigencies of the case might be devised; should some other plan be proposed, though it might not meet with his entire approbation, he pro- mised the right hon. gent., that he would not harrass him with useless opposition. He then went on to censure the proposed plan, which he condemned in terms of strong reprobation. He was not placed in a pleasant situation, when he differed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not imposing new taxes. The right hon. gent, had done nothing; he had completely lived on the last administration: and for the purpose of delusion he was evading a taxation, which must come again upon the people with aggravated pressure. The whole of his taxes laid on in 1808 produced only 320,000l. it was not unreasonable to ask what he had done in the space of almost four years. He had been most fortunate, but at the same time was fatally extravagant. Before the bill was adopted, he implored the House to consider maturely every circumstance and every objection he had urged.

observed, that the right hon. gent, had totally misconceived the statements of his right hon. friend. The sum of 1,200,000l. partly arose from the new and partly from the old taxes. There was besides an augmentation on duties of 20,000l. No one met deficiencies with more firmness and resolution than Mr. Addington did, particularly in 1802, when he imposed new taxes. It was the duty of ministers to prepare for the worst. If they were to take the war taxes, he asked, could it not be learned, by a simple computation, how short a way they would go? Retrenchment should certainly be made, but then it ought to be consistent with the safety of the country. The right hon. gent. said that the minister had broken the system established by Mr. Pitt. On the contrary, he was convinced that he would have acted in the same way, which assertion was corroborated by the last conversation he had with him, which was on that subject. He denied that his right hon. friend was evading the spirit or letter of the act under which the consolidated fund was established, by the measures in discussion. Having drawn up that act himself, he could speak to it with more certainty—he could say that his only object, and that of his deceased friend (Mr. Pitt) was to provide, that that fund should be sufficient to answer the charges upon it. But those charges being provided for, there was no intention whatever to prevent parliament from applying the surplus in any manner that might be deemed expedient to meet the exigencies of the public service. In that way the proposition before the House went to appropriate the surplus of a tax which exceeded its original estimate; and if his right hon. friend had not so applied that excess, instead of imposing any new taxes, he should have thought his conduct deserving of censure.

in explanation, stated, that he did not say that he approved of taking the war taxes.

agreed in the arguments of the right hon. gent. He was convinced that the salvation of the country depended on the retrenchment of establishments, and on making exertions to bring the loan of the year within the sinking fund. The hon. gent. then entered into a detail of financial difficulties, from the year 1797 to 1810. He wished to see the amount of the loan, and the sinking fund equalized; the proportion the surplus of the consolidated fund bore to the whole ought also to be looked into. He hoped the House would allow that there was a material difference between improvement and taxation.

declared he never rose with more confidence to justify the conduct of any measure than he did on the present occasion; and indeed he felt in his mind the strongest conviction that if his illustrious and lamented friend was now to stand in the place he so unworthily filled, he would have availed himself of the expedient he had resorted to. When the right hon. gent. said that he had varied from the principles of Mr. Addington, that he had violated the sinking fund, he was totally unfounded in such assertions. He would assure the right hon. gent. that when he stated that he had acted contrary to the practices of Mr. Addington and Mr. Pitt, he did not recollect that he was in a situation in which they never were, and this he would confidently maintain. Before he proceeded, he wished to make a few observations on what had fallen from the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Tierney) and his hon. friend who had just sat down. So far from thinking the right hon. gent. hostile to his measures, he did not blame him for accepting the challenge he had thrown out. The situation of the country had been adverted to, he was certain it was not the intention of his hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) to create a gloom in the mind of the House or of the country; he Was confident it was not his view, but unfortunately his assertions had that tendency, and had produced in the public mind the idea that from the state of our finances we were not able to carry on the war; however, it must be obvious, even from the enumeration of various difficulties and the means pointed out for meeting them, that such a circumstance was impossible. It had been stated, that the excise duty was oppressive to manufacture, but this was falsified by the state of trade, which, on the contrary, exhibited a great increase and progress; nothing therefore in the actual state of the country could justify this observation. The right hon. gent. opposite seemed to have assumed as a principle that it ought to be principally the object of ministers to look to the increase of the consolidated fund. In this he was not right. He begged the House to attend to the progress of the funds which he would now bring before them, and he trusted and anticipated that from, that the difference between his situation and that of Mr. Addington, and Mr. Pitt, would appear manifest. In the year 1792, the 3 per cents, were 96 and a fraction; in the next year, 1793, they came down to 77⅝; shortly after the war broke out they then were 75, and at the end of the year were 74. The ensuing year they were 73⅝: in 1795 they fell so low as 65; they rose for a short time, but in the year 1797 they were 55, and in 1798, 45¾. When Mr. Pitt found this to be the state of the funds he was obliged to borrow at the rate of 10 per cent. Even with this he found it impossible to proceed as his means were so reduced. The year 1797 was the first of the progress of the Income tax; from that time the price of stocks increased; and in the year 1801 they were at 62¾. Having raised the income tax, Mr. Pitt charged on it the loan of the year. When Mr. Addington succeeded, he carried the amount of debt charged upon the income tax to fifty-seven millions. The manner in which he acted with respect to the war taxes was but following the example and the practice of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Addington in 1802 boldly met the great debt of 57 millions; he laid on new taxes, and in 1803 the 3 per cents were at 73 and a fraction. The present war followed; in 1804 the 3 per cents, had fallen to 56; would then Mr. Addington have done wisely if he had not adopted the principles of Mr. Pitt, in 1804, 5, the stocks were at 59, in 1806 at 60, in 1807 60 and a fraction, and that was the state in which they were found when the present administration commenced. In the course of three years they have increased to 70¾; yesterday he believed they were 72; yet was he supposed to act on a contrary principle to Mr. Pitt. This statement must however shew distinctly the difference of their situation. To the manner in which lord Sidmouth met his difficulties he bore the highest testimony. But it had likewise been said that he had departed from the line of conduct which was pursued by the noble lord who preceded him; this proposition however was different from the resolution of the noble lord, which had been entered on the journals. If the right hon. gent. opposite thought that the consolidated fund was to be nourished in time of war, he must have been absent from the House when that resolution was passed. On the contrary, that resolution went to the establishment of a principle of making the surplus of the consolidated fund reasonably available for the service of future years. Such at least was the principle of the resolution of the noble lord in 1807, which was, that there should be laid before the House the net amount of the produce of the taxes of the three preceding years, and then an average of the surplus of the consolidated fund for the three ensuing; and if an increase was found that it should be applicable to the burden of the new loan. Did the right hon. gent. maintain that the noble lord did not wish the surplus of the consolidated fund to be touched, when in his resolution he approved of doing so?—(Hear! hear!) He was anxious till he heard how such extremes could be reconciled; and he was persuaded that parliament would not refuse its sanction to a measure, which, while it violated no principle, provided for the public exigency without any increase of taxation upon the people.

explained, and defended himself against the charge of having said any thing which should discourage or depress the country.

then spoke in reply. He maintained that the chancellor of the exchequer had not driven him from a single point with which he set out. He repeated all his former arguments, and impressed strongly upon the House the importance of the question, and represented the dangerous consequences of the new system. The right hon. gent. should have followed the course that had been uniformly pursued, or, at least, should have been pre- pared with better reasons to justify his departure from it, than he had been able to produce that night.

After a few words from Mr. Bathurst in support of the bill, the House divided, when there appeared, Ayes 117; Noes 53; Majority, 64.