called the attention of the House to the motion of which he had yesterday given notice, respecting the difficulties which presented themselves to the obtaining, by the relatives of deceased seamen and marines, the proper information, and the means of recovering the wages and prize-money due to them on the ships' books. The bonds required of the clerks in the Navy Pay-office, to prevent them from giving the necessary information which might be applied for, were, in his opinion, more calculated to produce fraud and mischief than to be of any real utility. They would, in fact, be subject to become the instruments of collusion between the persons in possession of the means and information, and persons desirous of converting those means to their own fraudulent views and emolument. If they were of real benefit, and operated, as it had been represented, to prevent imposition, he would ask, why were they not introduced into other branches of the navy department, where the clerks were as well acquainted with the sums respectively due as in the Pay-office? He could not discover any satisfactory or solid reason for continuing the practice, and confining it to one particular office. It seemed to him, that the best mode, both of preventing frauds, and of giving to the relatives of deceased seamen fair and easy opportunities of ascertaining the amount of what was due on the ships' books, would be, to publish the names of such seamen and marines every six months in the Gazette, with the sums due to them respectively at the time of their death. He concluded, with moving, "That every six calendar months, a list be published in the Gazette of the unclaimed wages and prize money due to deceased seamen and marines upon the books of his Majesty's ships of war, expressing the places where they were born."

could not help observing, that the hon. baronet had made no statement to justify the House in agreeing either to the propositions he had advanced in his speech, or to the motion which he had made. He could not perceive any ground stated by the hon. Daronet for convincing the House, that the practice of which he complained ought to be altered, and a new system introduced. Was it not right, that the lower clerks should be prevented from disclosing that information which was in other places at all times to be had? Was the treasurer of the Navy, the secretary to the Admiralty, or the comptroller to the Navy, more obscure than any one of the petty clerks, who had entered into the bonds of which the noble lord had complained? Was it not their duty to supply the information when duly applied for; and was there any charge preferred, or any case made out of their having refused to do so? The hon. baronet maintained, that the unclaimed wages and prize-money should be made public; but he seemed totally to forget that there were in London, sharpers who were ever ready and lying in wait to cheat the unwary, and who exercised their arts and stratagems with more success upon the kind of people applying for those unclaimed debts than upon any other classes. With respect to the appearance of the proposed lists in the Gazette, he would put it to the House and the hon. baronet, whether any increased publicity could be obtained by that mode, as very few of the claimants, who were generally poor people in the country, ever read the Gazette. Such a list would create perplexity and confusion; for, there were numbers of the same name in the navy. The sharpers and petty agents would be more active than ever, and be better enabled to take every advantage of the claimants. If the hon. baronet wished to know what became of the wages and prize-money which remained due, he would tell him.—It was carried to the chest at Greenwich, the interest was employed in paying the pensions of meritorious seamen, and the capital preserved untouched for the claimants whenever they might appear. He was happy to see the noble lord opposite in his place (lord Cochrane,) as he would give him an opportunity of making amends for the mis-statement of which he had been guilty on a former evening. He could now flatly contradict the noble lord's assertions in point of fact, as he had before contradicted them in point of principle. The first case was that of William Ford. The noble lord had stated, that William Ford had paid 80l. for his discharge from harbour duty. He had not paid 80l. nor any other sum for his discharge. The fact was directly contrary: William Ford was an able seaman on board the Imperieuse, the very ship commanded by, and which exposed the ignorance of, the noble lord. Ford's wife wrote a letter to him, requesting her husband's release, on providing proper substitutes: it was attended to by the Admiralty, and Ford was discharged, having never been invalided, and having been favoured by those very arrangements on which the noble lord had founded this charge. The next case stated by the noble lord, was of J. Milton, his coxswain. The assertion made by the noble lord was, that John Milton, after being invalided for harbour duty, and a Greenwich pensioner, had also paid 80l. for his discharge. Now what would the House think of the veracity of the noble lord, when he could prove, beyond the possibility of doubt, that John Milton was neither a harbour-duty man nor a Greenwich pensioner? He had also received a letter from John Milton's wife, requesting the board to discharge her husband, upon the usual provision of substitutes being made. A compliance with the prayer of the letter took place, and her husband was discharged. He, surely, after such misrepresentations, would not be thought to go too far in maintaining, that the noble lord's assertions could have little or no weight, since it was so very clearly proved, that he was ignorant of what passed in his own ship. John Milton, however, after having been discharged, contrived, through the means of Gawler, whose frauds he himself had detected, to obtain upon a false certificate, the pension of 12l. a year from Greenwich. The fraud was discovered, and the pension was withdrawn. (Mr. Croker substantiated his statements, by reading the letters he had received from the wives of Ford and Milton, and by referring to the official documents.) But the noble lord did not seem satisfied with exposing his own ignorance, where he had the best opportunities of being informed; he went much farther, he exposed his own faults, and condemned himself. The noble lord declared, he had discharged sixty men belonging to the Pallas, in consequence of their incapacity, and risked all the responsibility of the measure at the hazard of a court-martial. If the noble lord did so, he would tell the noble lord he had done that which he ought not to have done,—he had falsified the books of the ships entrusted to his honour and his care—(Hear, hear,)—for the books which he had signed with his own hand contradicted his positive assertion. (The fact was, that 15 men only were discharged from the Pallas within the period mentioned by the noble lord, no such entry there appeared, and he could not have exchanged them for supernumeraries, because, from those books it was seen that only 29 supernumeraries had been taken on board. The fact Mr. Croker satisfactorily established, by recapitulating, seriatim, the cases of the individuals discharged.) Having shewn, he trusted, to the satisfaction of the House, the ignorance and the unfounded statements of the noble lord, he could not suffer the present opportunity to pass by without also shewing that the Resolutions lately proposed by his lordship were gross and scandalous libels against the honour, the valour, and the character of the British nary. He was fortunate enough that morning to receive the sentence of the court-martial held on capt. Carden, and the officers and crew of the Macedonian. It not only acquitted, in the most honourable manner, captain Carden, accounting for his capture by the superior weight of metal, numbers, and size of the enemy's vessel, but expressed the greatest admiration of the gallantry of the officers and crew of the Macedonian. The noble lord had intimated a disposition on the part of the crew of the Macedonian, in favour of the enemy's service; the fact was directly the reverse; and the sentence of the court-martial proclaimed in decisive language the fidelity of the Macedonian's ship's company to their honour and their oath of allegiance. The noble lord appeared to be peculiarly and most unseasonably unfortunate, both in his mis-statements and libels. He came to the House calling upon them to declare, that our seamen were decayed and disheartened at the very time when a new instance of the courage and intrepidity of British seamen challenged the admiration, and excited the love of the House and the country.—It was not necessary for him to tell either the noble lord or the House, that he alluded to the gallant action fought by the Shannon frigate with the Chesapeake American frigate. The communication which he was about to make to the House had not been sought for or prepared by him. It had presented itself to him, as if from a divinity, to confute and confound the noble lord's misrepresentations and libels, to rescue the honour of the British navy from unfounded aspersions, and raise the glory of the British flag still higher than ever. As he was coming to the House, the official information of that glorious engagement was put into his hands. He should not trouble the House at any length with the character of captain Broke, who commanded the Shannon. It would be sufficient for him to say, that capt. Broke was an officer no less distinguished for his indefatigable activity and unwearied enter-prize, than for his skill and valour. With many occasions of making and preserving valuable prizes which must have materially contributed to increase his private fortune, he had uniformly preferred the cause of his country, and the good of the service, to his own interests. Cases had even occurred, when, although he might have very fairly preserved his prizes, he rather chose to send them, with all they contained, to the bottom of the sea, than let any opportunity slip in which his exertions and co-operation could be useful in another quarter. Capt. Broke, while commanding the Shannon, had left a most lucrative station to look for the West India convoy, when he was aware that it stood in need of his assistance. He succeeded in finding it, and it received his assistance and protection. He had, for a considerable time, looked with ardour for commodore Rodgers, and he had also succeeded in finding him; be chased him, but lost him in the pursuit. His gallant spirit was, however, at length gratified, and be found a most signal opportunity of exalting his own glory, and revenging the honour of his country. The action, which he fought with the Chesapeake, was in every respect unexampled. It was not—and he knew it was a bold assertion which he made,—to be surpassed by any engagement which graced the naval annals of Great Britain. The enemy's ship was superior in size, superior in weight of metal, superior in numbers. She entered into the contest with a previous conviction of all her superior advantages, and with a confirmed confidence of victory resulting from that conviction. All this superiority served but to heighten the brilliancy of capt. Broke's achievement; and a peculiar circumstance occurred which gave to this victory a new and richer colouring. Captain Broke was wounded. This, indeed, was not extraordinary, but the place on which he received his wounds inspired an interest that would be deeply felt, but could not be adequately described; he had the singular honour to be wounded on the deck of the enemy's ship while calling on his men to desist from slaughter.—The action did not occupy more than fifteen minutes from its commencement to its termination. The Chesapeake had made every possible preparation for the engagement. She came out of harbour in full sail. No other ship was in sight. The contest was to be singly and fairly decided,—if a contest could be called fair where there was a superiority in numbers, in weight of metal, or in dimensions, on one side. The Chesapeake's company consisted of 440 picked men, and she was larger than the Shannon by 150 tons. She had on board 49 guns, The Shannon was manned with 110 hands lees than the Chesapeake, and from her class, being a 38 gun frigate, she probably had, although he could not speak with absolute certainty, 44 or 46 guns. Not a shot was fired until they were nearly side and side. The firing was great and rapid; the exchange of broadsides was uninterrupted: but nothing could resist the tremendous attack made by the Shannon. The firing was marked with precision, energy, and a spirit so unabated, as to triumph over all difficulties. The enemy's main chains were locked in the fore chains of the Shannon. The order for boarding was given by captain Broke. Not an instant was lost in carrying the order into execution. The boarders rushed at one and the same moment from every deck,—from every part of the Shannon, into the enemy's ship. The Chesapeake was carried, and was in our possession in the course of three minutes. The topmen of the Shannon attacked the topmen of the Chesapeake, and stormed the maintop.—He was warranted in saying, that the victory was accomplished in less than 15 minutes, of which only three minutes were occupied in boarding, when 310 British seamen had to contend with 440 of the enemy. Captain Broke was cut down by a sabre blow, on the forecastle of the Chesapeake. During the tremendous firing which was kept up, and the boarding, not a rope of consequence, not a netting was hurt; and after the victory the two ships sailed away, to use the expression of captain Broke, as if they hart merely been firing a friendly salute. What, continued Mr. Croker, will, or rather what can, the noble lord say now? Will he persist in still maintaining that the captures made by the Americans have been caused by the decayed and disheartened state of our seamen, and not by the enemy's superiority in numbers and weight of metal? He begged leave to assure the House, that he had not introduced the account of the glorious victory gained by captain Broke, as a single instance of the success of one of our frigates; but it had come so opportunely to confound the noble lord's statement, and confute his misrepresentations, that he felt he would be doing an act of injustice to our gallant officers and seamen, to the House, and to the country at large, were he to pass it over unnoticed, at a moment so peculiarly fit and seasonable for its introduction. It was not, he knew, the day or the hour which could enhance the value and glory of captain Broke's great achievement, nor had be any occasion to strengthen by its effects, his arguments and statements against the noble lord, for he sincerely believed there could not be any day or hour, in the course of the year, in which he would not have more than ample means to contradict and disprove such assertions as the noble lord had made on this occasion.—Mr. Croker concluded with observing, that he trusted he had shewn not only the impropriety, but the danger of adopting the motion proposed by the hon. baronet.

admitted all that could be said of the gallantry of our seamen, but maintained that a great and rapid decay had been produced in their physical powers by the causes to which he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House. He was pleased that he had done so in the form of a Resolution, which could neither be misrepresented or misquoted without detection. It was in the recollection of the House, that he had not cast the slightest reflection either on officers or men, collectively or individually, although the hon. Secretary had chosen to defend them in both cases. Such a line of conduct might be best calculated to excite a feeling of disapprobation towards him (lord Cochrane) in the minds of those who had not attended to the subject, but it was not an honourable or a candid mode of proceeding to put words in his mouth and then argue to refute them. He had never mentioned the name of captain Broke, or alluded to him in the slightest degree, although the Secretary had spared no pains to defend him. Captain Broke had done his duty, his men proved adequate to the task he had imposed upon them, but if his (lord Cochrane's) information was correct the Shannon, was the only frigate on the American station in which a captain would have been justified in trusting to the physical strength of his crew. The hon. Secretary seemed to flatter himself, from the exulting manner in which he had delivered his speech, that he had also refuted those facts which he (lord Cochrane) did state. "Ford," says be, "did not pay 80l. for his discharge, or any other sum." But does not the hon. Secretary know that this man raised four substitutes, and that he, William Ford, could not procure them otherwise than by money? Was not the difficulty of getting seamen such that the Admiralty demanded four men for the discharge of one? Under such circumstances, it was obvious that the navy was manned, not by the national bounty or the prospect of reward from the service, but out of the funds of those who had long served their country. The noble lord pledged himself to establish at the bar of the House every circumstance stated in the Resolutions which he had moved on a former evening. Ford, he repeated, paid 90l. for his discharge—a sum equal to all that he could have saved during his 18 years' service! No man of feeling could justify the continuance of such a practice. As to the case of Farley, the hon. Secretary assured the House that he was not invalided for harbour duty, neither did he die in the service—facts which will not be deemed important when it is known (and it can be proved) that this respectable petty officer, who had been in 13 general actions and 32 years in the navy, was not invalided until within a few days of his death; and, that unable to return to his friends, he died on board the Imperieuse. Ought not seamen to be entitled to their discharge before they are reduced to this state? Can ships be efficient whilst men so debilitated form part of their crews? It is impossible. The hon. Secretary laid particular emphasis on the case of Milton as above all the most unfounded of his (lord Cochrane's) unfounded assertions. He had discovered that Milton had received his pension through Gawler, perhaps this was the easiest way; but be (lord Cochrane) knew that Milton deserved that pension, having been wounded under his command; he was the first man who boarded the Tapageuse in the river Bourdeaux, when that ship's corvette was captured by the boats of the Pallas alone. This led him to observe, that the lieutenant of the Pallas who executed this service was not promoted by the Admiralty, until sir Samuel Hood's first lieutenant had brought out another sloop long afterwards, from the same place, with the boats of a whole squadron—nor is it probable that he ever would have obtained the reward of his gallant conduct, unless the Admiralty had felt that the one could not longer be neglected if the other was promoted. So much for impartiality! He pledged himself to prove to the House the material fact that Milton had served 17 years and had paid nearly 100l. for his discharge. Surely such length of service should entitle seamen to some deduction from so oppressive an expence! This was not the case, however, neither was there any period fixed to which they could look forward as the termination of their compulsatory confinement. He (lord Cochrane) did not accuse the present admiralty of originating these abuses: possibly they were even ignorant of their existence. Boards never listened to individuals, and therefore he had adopted the present mode of calling the attention of parliament and of the country to the State of the Navy. Could any person have believed that the Admiralty, instead of decreasing the sum to be paid by meritorious seamen after long service, actually increase the amount! He wished that the present First Lord would look into his father's papers, who had it in contemplation to have made many alterations and improvements in naval affairs with which he was well acquainted. Probably, had he remained in office, the seamen would have had no cause now to lament the continuance of those evils of which he (lord Cochrane) was desirous to inform the House with a view that they might investigate the subject.—Here the noble lord read an extract from a letter he had received that morning from a seaman's wife, the mother of a family; and whose husband was compelled to pay 60l. for a discharge, which left their children without bread. She owed 7l. to her doctor, who had written to Mr. Croker, stating her extraordinary exertions for her family's support as the cause of her illness. The husband, after long service, had but 17l. remaining, and he was obliged to go down to Plymouth, before he could get his discharge. Was this a situation in which a British sailor should be placed? He was in the judgment of the whole navy, and he would prove his facts at the bar. If the hon. Secretary had any feelings, they ought to wring his breast, and prevent him from daring to defend such abuses. He would not detain the House longer than to say, that the army was now a model on which to form the navy—so much had circumstances changed. Their service was limited, and officers who did gallant acts were rewarded by promotion and brevet. He named lieutenant Johnson who served under his command in Basque Roads as an instance to prove the unwillingness of the Admiralty to do justice unless by favour.

would not permit the noble lord to lead the House away, by stating that his material facts had not been disproved. He (Mr. C.) had contradicted his main assertions. The noble lord had not got rid of that; and if he would give him farther opportunities, he would give him an equally satisfactory answer. With respect to lieut. Johnson nothing irregular, except in his promotion, had taken place. He left the insinuation of personal enmity in the Admiralty against the noble lord to what he thought it deserved, the contempt of the House.

admitted, that the hon. Secretary had contradicted his assertions, but he defied him to disprove one word contained in his Resolution. As the feelings of his brother officers might be excited by the statement of the hon. Secretary, who had stood forward in their defence though they had not been attacked, he would add again, that he had not even thought disrespectfully of any individual to whom the hon. Secretary had alluded. He admired the gallant conduct of capt. Broke, and asserted, that if the Admiralty did their duty, no 38 gun frigate of ours need shrink from a contest with the Americans.

reprobated the conduct of the noble lord as a senator, as much as he admired his gallantry as a naval commander. He felt a strong interest in the character of the British navy, both as an Englishman and a considerable ship owner, and he could not contain his indignation at seeing the attempts made to degrade it. The noble lord wished to prove, that after a certain time of life the seaman lost, in a great degree, his physical powers. But this charge he could disprove from his own personal knowledge: for one of the disabled and decrepid seamen, as they were called, was brought before him in his character of a magistrate the other day, charged with assaulting some scoundrels in the city of London in his own defence. When called upon for his vindication, he said, "Sir, they wanted to rob me, but I grappled with them, Sir; I grappled with one of them with one hand, and with the other hand I grappled with the other." Where, then was the proof of the diminution of physical power in this superannuated seaman? The worthy alderman proceeded in the same stile of observation at considerable length, and sat down, begging pardon of the House, for presuming to trouble them so long.

repelled with contempt the accusation made against him of endeavouring to excite dissatisfaction in the navy.

complimented his noble friend on his exertions to benefit a service of which he was so bright an ornament. What he had stated of abuses in the navy, was done with the hope that they would be corrected. The seaman could not have a more proper advocate; and if his noble friend's advice was attended to, instead of dissatisfaction, the result would be advantageous to the navy. What improper motive could possibly be assigned to his noble friend? Every man must feel and acknowledge the importance of the services of captain Broke; particularly under the present circumstances; but where all concurred in the same feeling, it was not necessary for every person to take up the time of the House in praising undisputed merit. When it was found, that after long service, the seaman forgot every thing but his duty to his country, a strong reason was afforded for looking into his situation. The hon. Secretary had made an eloquent eulogium on the navy; but yet he refused a motion, the object of which was to do good to the relatives of our brave seamen. Economy was an excellent thing; but in such cases as this, a too close attention to it might be the worst of practice. By greater liberality, bounty money might be reduced, and, perhaps, the practice of impressment might be got rid of; for its necessity seemed only to exist, because we did not give adequate rewards. He was no patronizer of such misplaced economy. It was inconsistent with the justice of the country, to dole out such miserable pittances to brave men. There might be unmerited pensions and sinecures, the retaining of which prevented the just discharge of well founded obligations. It might be impossible to reward the deserving, while a corrupt borough influence prevailed. Let that be stopped, and some enlargement made for the sake of justice, and the nation would reap the benefit.

The division being called for, no Ayes went out; there were 63 members remaining in the House. The motion was consequently negatived.

moved, "That the Supplies voted for the service of the United Kingdom, for the several years from 1803 to 1813, inclusive, may be stated as follows; viz.

And a debate arising thereupon; it was ordered, That the said debate be adjourned till the 22d inst. The adjourned debate upon the motion, made upon Friday last, respecting the Supplies voted for the Navy, Army, Ordnance, Vote of Credit, and Subsidies for Great Britain and Ireland, from 1805 to 1813, was also further adjourned to the same day.

proposed a provision, reserving to parliament the right at any time pending the continuance of the charter to interpose its legislative authority in any manner it should deem expedient, in order to provide for the happiness or good government of the people of India, without however prejudicing the profits of the India Company. Without this amendment, the hon. member observed, that according to the terms of the Bill, a power would be granted to the executive government which was denied to parliament.

said, that the clause which the hon. member proposed to amend, was exactly in the same words as the former Act, and that he saw no necessity whatever for the proposition.—It was rejected without a division.

Upon the clause respecting the proposed religious establishment in India being read,

hoped, upon the same principle, that the Company was to have the authority of sending home any religious missionaries who might conduct themselves improperly, while such conduct was not at all distinctly specified in the Bill, and of course a great latitude of authority was created, the crown would be invested with the power of recalling any bishop who might be guilty of improper conduct.

observed, that any bishop who should violate the laws would be as amenable to those laws as any other individual in India.

thought, that in the patent appointing the bishop, provisions might be taken to guard against any such impropriety as the hon. member seemed to apprehend.

Here the conversation dropped.

proposed that one of the chaplains at each of the three presidencies in India, should be a clergyman of the church of Scotland, enjoying the same allowances as the other chaplains, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of Edinburgh. The hon. and learned member mainly rested the propriety of this proposition of the agents of the India Company who belonged to the church of Scotland.

suggested to the hon. and learned gentleman, the expediency of rather submitting his proposition upon bringing up the Report, or upon the third reading of the Bill, than pressing it into discussion on this stage. At the same time he was free to say, that his objections to the arrangement proposed, were not at all removed, but rather increased by what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman.

supported the proposition of Mr. Horner. After some conversation between Mr. Forbes, Mr. Bathurst, lord Castlereagh, Mr. Grant, Mr. Robinson, Mr. R. Smith, and Mr. J. Smith, the House divided.

The other clauses were gone through, and the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow.

moved the order of the day for committing the Cotton Bill, for the purpose of proposing the postponement of any farther proceedings upon the subject until the next session. But while he thus manifested his unwillingness to press the measure at this advanced period of the present session, against opinions and considerations which had due weight on his mind, he had no inclination whatever to give it up. On the contrary, he hoped hereafter to be enabled to bring the subject in an unobjectionable form under the consideration of the House. He thought it most desirable to remove doubts at home, and to convince America that our manufacturers could dispense with its cotton; and our ability to do so could not be questioned by any one competent to judge of the produce of our own colonies, which produce was amply sufficient for our supply. In fact, above 14,000 bales of cotton had within a recent period been imported from our colonies. But ample information upon this important subject would, he trusted, be collected before the next session, for the satisfaction of the House and the country.

expressed his happiness that the worthy alderman was disposed to postpone this measure, which so many members, not at all repugnant to its principle, were unwilling to have passed at this late period of the session.

The order of the day being read, the committal of the Bill was postponed to this day three months.

opposed the Bill. He said the provisions of it would, in many instances, contribute to the oppression of those very individuals whom it was the objects of the Bill to relieve. It also established a precedent for the violation of church property. The clergy held their property on the condition of providing for the cures; but when they did so their property could not be interfered with by the House.

approved of the Bill. Non-residence was a crying evil in this country, and had given rise to infidelity, contempt of religion, and numerous other bad consequences. What care could the non-resident clergyman take of souls when he did not see them. He was no friend to tythes, though he thought the clergy ought to be suitably provided for. The clergy of Scotland did not desert their parishes as was done in this country, and the good consequences were visible.

opposed the Bill. He did not think that it would be advantageous to the church, that a new order of curates should start up who looked more to the present stipend, than to rising to benefices.

supported the Bill. He did not see how improving the actual situation of the curates could prevent their rising in time to benefices.

disapproved of the Bill. In his opinion, this profession, like all others, should have its great rewards. Here, however, what was a penalty against the incumbent, was a benefit to the curate. His objection to the Bill was this, that while it went to prevent a plurality of livings, it did not go to prevent a plurality of curacies. His proposition would be, that no clergyman should serve more than one cure.

agreed that the Bill was not without its defects; the object, however, was to effect something more than they now had, and to improve, as far as they could, the character of the clergy. The order of things now was, to act by deputy: this disposition he was anxious should be limited and controuled; and if the higher orders of the clergy were suffered to perform that duty by deputy, to the greater length would this mischievous practice be carried.

objected, that while the whole professed end and scope of this Bill was to secure the residence of the clergy, there was not a single clause to compel the residence of the curates, who were alone to be benefited by the present Bill.

observed, that the strongest argument against the Bill, was, that it was not perfect. This, he admitted; but it, nevertheless, became the duty of those who were friendly to the residence of the clergy to devise the best substitute in their power for such a deficiency. Bishop Burnet considered non-residence as perfectly monstrous, and what would bring the church of England to ignominy and contempt. To avoid this the present Bill was admirably calculated, and, as such, it had his support.

expressed his disapprobation of the Bill, which was quite dissimilar to that of the late Mr. Perceval, which was introduced to attain the same object. For, by the Bill of Mr. Perceval, livings of 400l. a-year only were to be affected, while the Bill under consideration, at the same time that it left the higher livings untouched, fell most oppressively on those smaller livings, which formed one-third of the whole of the livings belonging to the established church; therefore the advocates for Mr. Perceval's Bill were in consistency bound to oppose this measure. Another objection to this Bill was, that it obliged the incumbent to pay the gross amount of the living to the curate, instead of the net amount—thus compelling him to pay more than the incumbent actually received, for he would have to discharge the usual deductions of land-tax, income-tax, and poor's rate, out of his own pocket. Upon the whole, he looked on this Bill as such a radical sweeping alteration in the system of our church establishment, that those by whom it was brought forward and supported, could not in future consistently resort to the language of alarm against any proposition of radical change, or, as it might be called, reform, in any other part of our system.

argued in favour of the Bill, and hoped the House would take care to have it adequately executed by the bishops, who must themselves, as he apprehended, feel gratified in having the provisions of such a measure rendered as imperative as possible.

On a division the numbers were—

The House accordingly proceeded in the farther consideration of the Report. Mr. Wetherall moved an amendment, that instead of the phrase "gross amount," adverted to by Mr. Smith, the words "net amount," should be inserted. After a short conversation between Messrs. Robert Smith, Pole Carew, Stephen, and J. Smith, the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested the propriety of rather submitting his proposition upon the third leading of the Bill, which suggestion was acceded to. The Report was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

declared that he could not allow it to pass without entering his protest against it. For although the measure was brought forward by himself, its object was so much counteracted by a clause inserted in it on the motion of the noble lord, that he entertained serious objections to its enactment. By this clause the present Registrar, lord Arden, was entirely exempted from the provisions of the Bill, and the principle was recognized that that noble lord was warranted in the practice of appropriating for his own private profit the money of suitors in the Admiralty court, which money was merely entrusted to him for safe custody. Such a deviation from the practice of the court of Chancery, for instance, and also from what he conceived to be the duty of every public functionary, ought not, in his opinion, to, be sanctioned by any legislative enactment, and therefore he opposed it.

spoke in favour of the clause. He contended that the office was granted in the nature of a freehold, and that the advantage of being banker to the court of Admiralty, formed no inconsiderable part of the emoluments. He approved much of the Bill, but at the same time he thought it much improved by the clause added to it.

condemned the attempt to pass a Bill, so materially altered as the present was by the clause under consideration, at a time when so small a portion of the House was present, especially as the Bill without that clause had been printed, and it might be supposed by many who were absent, that the Bill about to be passed, was the same as the one already printed. He contended, that its operation would be to make that legal, which in the opinion of every lawyer, was decidedly illegal, namely, the application of suitors' money to the interest of the officers in whose hands it was lodged. He wished it, therefore, considering the importance and magnitude of the alteration, to stand over till the next session.

contended, that the practice of a banker (and the Registrar was the banker of the Admiralty) using the money in his hands to his own benefit, provided, however, that it was forthcoming whenever required by the parties interested, was not illegal. The question, indeed, before the House seemed to be, whether the bank of England should enjoy the interest, or the individual who now enjoys it. He should prefer the latter, and therefore he should support the clause.

contended that the situation of the registrar of the Admiralty was analogous to that of a master in Chancery, he therefore objected to the clause which had been added on the motion of lord Castlereagh, and said he should oppose the passing of the Bill as it stood, as it would furnish argument that the use of suitors' money by the Registrar of the Admiralty was legal, and because he could not consent that a measure thought necessary should be postponed indefinitely for the advantage of an individual, as it would be by the clause inserted.

supported the clause, deferring the operation of the Bill during the life of lord Arden, and upheld the legality of the use made of suitors' money by the Registrar, and declared, that he should vote for the Bill as it stood.

expressed his surprise at the assertion that the use made of suitors' money was legal, and opposed the passing of the Bill.

The House divided—For the Bill 45; Against it 9; Majority 36. The Bill was then passed.