presented a petition from certain inhabitants of the parish of St. Mary-le-bone, praying for the repeal of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. He took the opportunity of repeating his opinion as to the effects of this act, which lie considered most mischievous. The House, he said, would be surprised to learn, that it appeared from an authentic return, that the amount of the debts of the persons who had been discharged under this act was 5,597,859l., while the aggregate amount of the available property of these persons was only 1,459l.

said, he held in his hand a petition, to which he wished to call the attention of the House. It was signed by 5000 persons, merchants and traders in the city of Westminster—by the most respectable part of the population of that great and respectable city. This petition might be said, in the truest sense of the words, to speak the sentiments of the inhabitants of Westminster. The prayer of the petition was for the repeal of the insolvent debtors' act, an act under which the most enormous abuses seemed to have been committed. There was one circumstance which he must mention to the House, as it was chiefly upon it that the petitioners grounded their application, and as it would impress the House with the absolute necessity of a thorough revision of the statute. It would scarcely be believed, that during the three years previous to the 1st of February last, persons had been discharged under this act, the Whole amount of whose debts was the enormous sum of 5,597,859l. By the operation of this act, debts had been washed away—claims had been cut down —persons had got rid of just demands upon them, almost all of which were what are called simple contract debts, to this prodigious amount. And what were the funds extracted for the payment of those debts? It was usual to talk of a shilling in the pound as a miserable composition; but there was no coin current in this kingdom small enough to denominate the rate of composition paid by the persons discharged under the provisions of this statute. He had tried to calculate the rate of it by fractions of a farthing, and he found that the amount of the property extracted from the persons so discharged made a composition at the rate of about the one-fourth or one-fifth part of a farthing in the pound. The whole amount paid was the miserable sum of 1,459l 10s. 4d. This statement would show the necessity of instituting some inquiry as to this act.

thought that the statement of his hon. and learned friend was highly deserving the attention of the House; but the present was not the proper time to discuss the measure. He would therefore only now say, that he had reason to believe, on authority which he could not doubt, that the statement which had been made by his hon. and learned friend was very much exaggerated. It would be proper, after the committee had received evidence on the subject, to consider well how much of this evil was owing to the negligence of creditors in not taking advantage of the provisions of the act, and to compare that with the inconveniencies which could fairly be ascribed to the act itself. He thought that much of the evil was owing to the creditors themselves.

repeated his statement, and maintained, against the authority of his hon. and learned friend, that every syllable of it was correct. He could not think how creditors could be so negligent of their own interests as to overlook any of the provisions of the act by which they might benefit. This seemed to him quite a riddle. However, it was matter for inquiry in the committee, to which, when the House heard the petition read, it would, he had no doubt, be disposed to refer it.

The petition was ordered to be referred to the select committee appointed to inquire into the effects which have been produced by the insolvent acts of the 53rd and 54th of the King.

rose, for the purpose of giving notice that on Monday next, in the committee of ways and means, he intended to propose the continuance of certain of the assessed taxes, but that he did not intend to propose any continuance of the war duties up on malt [Cries of Hear, hear!]. The House would be aware that after he had been deprived of one of the greatest resources on which he had calculated, it could not be expected that he should dispense with any of the means that remained. In consequence of the decision it would be necessary to have recourse to the money market; and when this change in the financial regulations of the year became necessary by his being deprived of so great a resource as the property tax, it was of little consequence that the loan should be increased by the amount of the calculated produce of the malt duty. From the petitions that had been presented to the House; from the able and luminous statements that had been made by several hon. members; and from the conversations which he had held on this subject, with persons the best informed as to the state of the agricultural interest, he was convinced that this part of the community would now feel that the most effectual relief was afforded them by the relinquishment of this tax. He was therefore willing to give the country the relief in this respect which was so much required, and to rely on the wisdom of parliament to supply the means which would be required in consequence of these arrangements [Hear, hear!]. With respect to another tax, which was not unimportant to the agricultural interest, namely, the husbandry horse duty, having already given a pledge to the country that this should undergo some favourable modifications, it was not his intention to abandon that pledge; but, under the present circumstances, he should not feel himself at liberty to propose the relinquishment of any of the remaining resources of the country [Hear, hear!].

of Norfolk, hailed the moment at which the war duty on malt was to expire, as the most auspicious which could occur for the relief and encouragement of the agricultural interests of this country. He considered this concession the more acceptable, because, from what had fallen from the chancellor of the exchequer on the first day on which he pro- posed the continuance of the tax on income, it appeared that the only relief he intended to give the agriculturalist, was a diminution of the tax one-half. Nothing could have exceeded the distress which prevailed among this class, and nothing could afford them more substantial satisfaction than the course now proposed to be taken, in the contemplation of which no individual in the country could feel more cordial delight than himself. He still firmly believed, however, that this was not so great a relinquishment as might be supposed. The produce of the war malt duty, he believed, was about 2,7000,000l. This sum would be made up by the increased market for barley. The lower classes would be able to enjoy a wholesome beverage, at a much less expense than heretofore; the consumption of malt beer would consequently increase, and the old duty would be proportionately more productive. There were also advantages of a more satisfactory nature, and these would arise from the renewed cultivation of those lands which were alone capable of growing barley, rye, and inferior oats, and could not be used in the growth of wheat, which had been thrown out of use altogether, by the weight of the present taxation. The consequence to the farmers in Norfolk, where the land was poorer than in any other part of Great Britain, would be peculiarly important, as they would be able to bring into cultivation land which heretofore would not recompense them for their labour. While on his legs, he could not help adverting to an expression used by the noble lord opposite in the course of the discussion of the income tax, which, however objectionable, he could not but think was in some measure to be justified. He alluded to the expression,"an ignorant impatience of taxation."The noble lord had, on a recent occasion, been down into the county of Norfolk, and from the distresses, of which he must have been an eye-witness, no doubt saw a considerable degree of impatience. This impatience, however, had been carried to a length in two instances to which he was about to advert, of which perhaps the noble lord might have heard—namely, the fact of two of his own tenants, from the impatience which they felt under the burthens by which they were oppressed, having actually destroyed themselves. This certainly was an ignorant impatience, which justified the noble lord's remark—as these men had shown an ignorant impatience in not waiting to see what parliament would do to relieve their distresses. The hon. gentleman concluded by saying, that no man rejoiced more than he did in the intention announced by the chancellor of the exchequer.

was sorry, at a time when a communication so satisfactory as that which had been made by his right hon. friend, that any disposition should exist to revive a subject which could be attended with no good effect. He thought that no acrimonious disposition ought to be excited on the present occasion, and was therefore much surprised that the hon. member who had just sat down should have introduced into his speech a misrepresentation of an expression used by him on a former occasion. This was not the first attempt that had been made on the other side of the House to represent expressions which had been applied only to the conduct of gentlemen opposite, as being used towards the nation at large. He had accused the honourable members of endeavouring to clamour down certain taxes; and it was against this conduct on their part, and not to any thing passing out of doors, that he had used some such expression as that imputed to him. As to the occurrence which the hon. gentleman had mentioned at the end of his speech, he could only say, that he had never before heard of it. But, with reference to the construction put upon his words, he begged now to state explicitly, that the expression which had been so often repeated, had been applied by him only to the gentlemen opposite, and not to any thing out of doors.

only rose to express his satisfaction at the communication made by the chancellor of the exchequer respecting the cessation of the war malt tax. He understood that the act would expire twelve months after the conclusion of a treaty of peace; and therefore it would cease some time in July.

said, that the act would expire on the 26th of July, and that it would be very expedient that some arrangement should be made as to repayments owing to the time when it would cease. He took that opportunity of asking the hon. member for Essex to postpone his motion for a committee on the distressed state of agriculture which stood for to-morrow, as it might be inconvenient for many members to attend.

so far from having any objection, had intended to propose the postponement of his motion till to-morrow se'nnight. He then moved that the order of the day should be read for the purpose of postponing it.

wished to state, on the part of Scotland, that the cessation of the malt tax would only afford a very partial relief to the distress in that part of the kingdom; which was so great as to call urgently for some effectual remedy.

said, it was a subject of a particular satisfaction, that the course taken by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had arisen out of the exertions of the people themselves, and not because his majesty's ministers were inclined to make any thing like a liberal concession. If the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues had been left to themselves, he knew, and the country knew, that neither the malt nor the income tax would have been abandoned. The people owed these important circumstances to themselves; and he hoped it would be an eternal lesson to the people of England, that when they were true to themselves, and declared their sentiments to their representatives, and their representatives attended to those sentiments, they would compel the ministers of the Crown to yield to their wishes. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer could not afford to part with six millions of the property tax, and yet now he was about to part with two millions more, making a total of eight millions within the year. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would not only find it necessary to part with both of these taxes, but also with all those expenses for which the property tax was intended to provide. If the people would follow up their exertions with regard to the public expenditure, he was satisfied they would obtain just as much success.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman had been in his place when his right hon. friend had explained the circumstances under which he had given up the war malt duty, he would not have spoken so confidently, or in a tone so elevated. He would not have triumphed so loudly in what he was pleased to term a concession arising out of the exertions of the people. His right hon. friend had never disguised from himself the pressure which was experienced by all classes in the country; but the grounds on which he had agreed to remit the war tax on malt were these:—Having failed in retaining that tax in a modified shape, which he was satisfied was alone calculated to support the credit of the country, and as his majesty's government were bound to find the ways and means for the year in some way or other, and were consequently forced into the money market, it became a matter of in difference whether they took a loan of six or eight millions. This it was which induced them to feel, as their system for sustaining the credit of the country had been broken in upon, that it was unnecessary to continue the war malt duty. The principle being once destroyed, it was in vain to endeavour to uphold it by the continuance of a partial measure. His own feeling as to this tax was, that if all classes of the community had been ready to pay it, and if parliament had thought proper to enact it, the measure would have been wise, politic, and just. But when the members of the House thought proper to relieve themselves (he did not use the expression in an invidious sense, but because the tax was one which justified these words as affecting the upper classes of society most heavily)—then ministers found it necessary to make some change in their measures for the relief of the people. He protested before the House and the country, that he thought, under the present circumstances of the country, that the decision of parliament, as to this tax had been unwise [Hear, hear!]. For if parliament had granted it under the modifications proposed, his firm conviction was, that the distresses of the country would have been more effectually relieved, and the finances of the country would have been established on the firmest basis. After parliament had decided against this tax, it would certainly have been unwise to have adhered to the malt tax, as there was so general an impression that its cessation would afford much relief, and its relinquishment could make very little difference under the new financial arrangements which became necessary.

was desirous of joining in the general satisfaction at the repeal of the war duties on malt. He begged to add, that he had hitherto supported all the measures of his majesty's government during the progress of the war; they must, however, depend no longer upon his support, if that was worth their consideration, unless they proceeded to act upon a system of the most rigid economy [Hear, hear!].

said, the extraordinary observations of the noble lord were almost obliterated from his mind by the gratitude he felt towards the hon. member who spoke last for the pledge which he had just given. If that pledge should be redeemed by the hon. member, and the other representatives of the landed interest should imitate his example, there would then be a chance of saving the country; and be the minister who he might, that House would possess the means of compelling the Crown to observe a system of general economy. He understood the hon. member to mean, that his support of his majesty's ministers would in future be in proportion to the measures they adopted for redeeming the pledge held out in the speech from the throne at the commencement of the session, and the consequences of neglecting which, he apprehended, would be too frightful to be described. It now appeared that the malt tax was to be taken off only because the property tax could not be carried, or according to the statement of the right hon. gentleman, that a small relief to the amount of two millions was necessary, after a great relief to the amount of six. He believed it to be nothing more than an attempt to take credit for that which, if ministers had not done voluntarily, the will of parliament and the sense of the country would have extorted from them. The right hon. gentleman and the noble lord still thought highly of the merits of the property tax; and if so, why did they not again submit it to the consideration of parliament? Other measures had been carried, to which the House had expressed its aversion in the first instance; but the noble lord well knew, that on this subject the decision was final—that he and his tax had been completely defeated. To this he attributed the subdued tone of ministers; and if the rejection of the property tax was a reason for repealing other obnoxious duties, on the principle, that if there was a loan at all, its amount was of little importance, he wished to know what objection could exist to the repeal in particular of the leather tax. Upon their own principle, they were bound to take off every burthen, the pressure of which was felt either in agriculture or by the lower classes of society.

said, he would leave it to the House to judge whether, in the tone of his noble friend, there had been any thing to justify the observations of the hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last respecting the decision of the House on the property tax. If the House had approved of the plan which he had proposed, he felt convinced that it would have been the best foundation for our financial system, and would have afforded a permanent relief to the distresses under which the country now laboured. He, however, considered the decision of the House so final upon the subject that he had no intention again to appeal to it. He hoped, with as much sincerity as the most sanguine, that the repeal of the malt duties would contribute greatly to the relief of agriculture, and, above all, to the comforts of the lower classes.

expressed his joy at the relief which would be afforded by the discontinuance of the malt tax. When the House had least expected it they had got rid of two most oppressive taxes. Indeed ministers seemed to be in such a fair way, that he feared that the noble lord, after having said that the safety of the country so much depended on the income tax—that it was to stand or fall by that tax—(for his own part he thought the country was likely to stand merely because the tax had fallen)—that the noble lord was going to state, that himself and his colleagues were going out of office [A laugh].

noticing the expression of the noble lord, that the income tax was one which fell chiefly upon the higher orders, said, he could not sit still and hear such a statement without contradicting it. He maintained it was a tax which fell most heavily upon the labouring and lower classes of the community.

could not refrain from expressing his satisfaction at the intention of discontinuing the malt tax. He could not sit down without noticing what had been said by a right hon. gentleman opposite, which went so far as to lay it down, that in proportion as government or the House should consider what relief could be afforded to the country, the people were to be called upon to petition for more relief. This was a proposition so extraordinary and so untenable, that he was astonished how it could be advanced. It must be obvious, that at the conclusion of a war there were many expenses which for a time it would be necessary to incur; and therefore that the country could not be at once relieved of taxes to such an ex- tent as was to be expected during peace. He protested against the new doctrine, that petitions were to be continued in proportion as relief was granted.

entirely agreed with the noble lord in the propriety of considering the situation of the poor by an abandonment of the malt duties, now that the House had relieved itself and the upper classes by rejecting the property tax [Hear, hear!]. He fully agreed with the noble lord (Castlereagh) that this was the character of the course which the House had taken.

did not wonder that gentlemen who had taken no part in the glorious victory which had been obtained by the House, and who stood among the minority against the important question which had been decided on Monday night, should now endeavour to take some credit to themselves by a participation in the hardly wrung additional benefit which had been obtained by the public. The hon. gentleman who had just sat down, in defiance of the facts which were before the House, had recourse to the hacknied and stale proposition, that the rich, and not the poor, were affected by the property tax. Although this fallacious statement might have excited a mob to speak in favour of the tax in the city of Bristol, the hon. gentleman might rest assured that it would have no weight with that House or with any thinking man, without it. The proposition was prima facie not true, for it was clear, from every information that could be collected, that the poor were equally affected with the rich. The argument of the hon. gentleman and of the noble lord on this occasion savoured rather of that revolutionary doctrine which was promulgated by the French convention—which said war to the palace and peace to the cottage. It was, in fact, an attempt to delude the people and the country into an opinion, that the House had not been desirous of protecting their interests. The right hon. baronet then proceeded to suggest the expediency of members paying obedience to the wishes of their constituents, and if such an obedience could not be observed with a due regard to their own feelings, to surrender the trust into other hands.

could not sit still and hear it said, that the property tax affected the poor as much as the rich; this he utterly denied. No gentleman who considered the state of great land-holders and stock- holders would say, that they were not more relieved by the abandonment of the tax than the poor. He admitted, that the middling class of traders were much oppressed, from the exposure of their affairs, which necessarily took place under the provisions of the late act; but he still maintained, that it was the rich who suffered most from its existence. As to the observation of the right hon. baronet, with respect to the propriety of implicitly following the opinions of their constituents, he should be glad to know how many seats would have been resigned, on the question of the corn bill, if the principle of the right hon. baronet were pursued.—At that time fifty petitions were presented in one evening, against the proposed bill, which was, notwithstanding, carried into effect. This was not the proper time to discuss the merits of the income tax; but the period would arrive, when the public would agree with him, that it was the best measure that could be devised.

strongly condemned any departure from the old and excellent custom of raising the supplies for the current year, within the year; which could better be effected by direct taxation, than by loan. With respect to the observation of the right hon. baronet, that those who differed from the opinions of their constituents ought to vacate their seats, he never could agree to such a principle—the admission of which must immediately destroy the independence of the House. What; were they only to be independent of the Crown? Were they not sent to that House to use their deliberate judgment, and to vote according to the dictates of their conscience? When they thus acted, as appeared to them, for the benefit of the country, the public, their neighbours, and those who were watching their conduct in that House, must see it. But, because there was a strong popular feeling on a particular subject, were they, if they voted in opposition to that feeling, immediately afterwards to give up their seats? If they did so, they would be changed into mere delegates. They would no longer be a body assembled together for the good of the empire at large; but they would be obliged to obey the opinion of a certain number of individuals in the country. Whether he came from a place, in which there was a small or a great number of constituents (and he was free to confess his constituents were not very numerous), did not, in his opinion, alter the position. If he did his duty, honestly and to the best of his judgment, he would be ready to meet a large or a small body of constituents, and to justify his conduct.

said, his observation did not apply to those who differed from the opinion of the community at large, but to those who held sentiments different from the great body of their constituents.

said, that, in a great deal of what had fallen from his hon. friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley) he entirely concurred; but he did not state the circumstance to which the result of the debate of the other evening was to be attributed. If gentlemen looked merely to their own constituents and acted according to their opinions, then, indeed, they became merely delegates. But the constitutional principle was this—that the House of Commons at large were to act with the people at large. That doctrine he would maintain, as well as the doctrine laid down by his hon. friend. If the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) felt restless on his seat, when he heard the opinion expressed by several hon. members, he (lord Milton) felt no less uneasy on his, when he heard the assertions of the right hon. gentleman. There was no alliance which courtiers and the dependents of the Crown were more ready to make, than an alliance with the mob. They knew that resistance to the Crown was to be looked for from the landed interest of the country, and the only allies whom they could call in, to maintain them in their servility, were the mob (Hear, hear!). They knew this well; and the right hon. gentleman's speech that night was only similar to what had been uttered on former occasions, and was a pretty good sample of the line that had been pursued by persons of his description, in the present day, and in preceding times. He utterly denied the right hon. gentleman's statement. He said, that the poor did not feel the property tax. Was a man who received four or five pounds a year, as a mark of approbation from his deceased master, was he a rich man? and did he not pay to the property tax? [Cries of No!] He affirmed that it was so [No, no, from lord Castlereagh]. The noble lord was certainly wrong. If a man had a mere annuity left him, even in that case he paid the tax; and of this he was quite sure, that if he had stock in the funds, producing four or five pounds a year, he undoubtedly con- tributed his portion. Was he a rich man? Did the hon. member for Christ-church call him wealthy? He could not do it. And yet, with this fact before him, he told the House, that the income tax fell only on the rich. He called on the right hon. gentleman, instead of dealing out rumours, to deal in argument. He had accused an hon. gentleman of not adducing any argument—but what he (lord Milton) now stated was sufficient to prove that the observation of the hon. member for Wiltshire was founded in fact. The poor man who contributed to the tax suffered much more than the rich one. It bore a great deal harder on such a person, when he was deprived of one-tenth of his trifling income, than it did on the right hon. gentleman with his thousands. His proportion came out of his luxuries. He might have a horse, a carriage, or a servant less, but he had as good a dinner every day as usual. But did the poor man, when he gave up one-tenth of his income, continue to have so good a dinner as he had been previously in the habit of sitting down to? The tax, he knew, fell in the same proportion on the higher and lower orders, but it bore more heavily on the latter, because their property was too small to admit of such a reduction, without giving up some comfort or necessary of life. Away, then, with all those assertions and rumours, which, pursuing the example the right hon. gentleman had set, at former times, he now wished to scatter amongst the people. Rumours that could be set afloat for no other purpose, but to attract the attention, and solicit the support of the mob.

believed the noble lord was completely mistaken with respect to the operation of the property tax. He had a recollection, that, as it existed in 1806, all such persons as those mentioned by the noble lord were exempted. Whether the noble lord's friends, who raised the amount of the tax, had removed those exemptions, he would not so confidently state; nor was it necessary, in his view of the question, that he should. The noble lord talked of his appealing to the mob. He had as great a contempt for such a proceeding as the noble lord. He had stood up, at different times, to support the interest of various classes of the people, but it was always in an open and straight forward way.

said, he would not have spoken on the present occasion, but for the extraordinary reason assigned by the chancellor of the exchequer for giving up the war malt tax. The right hon. gentleman observed, that having been deprived of five or six millions, in consequence of the failure of the property tax, it was of little importance whether he came forward to negociate a loan for six or for eight millions. In this he showed as much ignorance of the state of the money market, as he had done when he preferred introducing the property tax to raising a moderate loan, for fear he should occasion a depression of the funds. If he had recourse to the system of borrowing very extensively, instead of looking to certain sources of taxation, he would find himself greatly mistaken in the success of his speculation. But this was merely a pretext for abandoning the tax. It appeared to him more likely that it was laid aside because ministers saw that the House were determined to make them spend less; and that was the way alone in which the prayers of the petitioners throughout the country could be fairly complied with. The real state of the case, he believed, was, that the present government would submit to any thing sooner than allow the administration of affairs to be taken out of their hands.

said, the reason he voted against the tax was, because it was extremely oppressive on the lower orders of society, his conviction on this point did not rest on hearsay, but was the result of an examination of the papers laid on the table. The last paper was an account of the property tax paid by persons in trades and professions. In that account, the first class of persons were those whose incomes were above 50l. and under 100l.; and it appeared that the sum paid by them constituted more than one-eighth of the amount of the whole tax, Could any person say, that this did not fall upon those who were ill able to pay it? It fell on the industrious classes in the country—on those who, from being journeymen, had, by their exertions, attained the situation of small masters. The next class consisted of persons whose incomes were upwards of 100l. and below 150l. Now, putting the two classes together, he found that they paid very nearly one quarter of the whole tax under schedule D. The hon. gentleman then repelled the insinuation which had been thrown out, that the House had removed the tax, merely for the purpose of serving themselves. For his part, he could justly affirm, and he believed hundreds of members around him could do the same, that in voting against the measure, he wished to give relief to the people, without considering what benefit might result to himself. He thought the noble lord had acted improperly when he expressed himself in such a manner, and had thus given an opportunity to designing men to put a wrong construction on the conduct of those who opposed the tax; by such persons it would probably be represented, that there was a combination of the rich, to burthen and oppress the poor. He congratulated the House on the vote of Monday night; one benefit had already resulted from it, the abandonment of the war malt tax. But it was not to be supposed, in consequence of this, that ministers did not know where to stop in conceding, and that the people did not know where to cease in demanding. There was, he could assure the House, more sense amongst the people, than some gentlemen seemed to imagine. They would be thankful for what they had received, and they would show their gratitude by their readiness in paying the taxes which must necessarily be suffered to remain; provided there was manifested, what they had a right to expect, an evident desire to promote economy in every department of the state. He did not think that his majesty's ministers were sufficiently apprised of the distress under which the country laboured; and he should like to lead the noble lord and the other members of the administration, if they would follow him, into the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, where they would learn a lesson which never could be forgotten. He would then introduce them to the small farmers in Yorkshire, who were impoverished beyond description; and, if they afterwards chose to take a trip to Ireland, he would have no objection to wish them a pleasant journey. They would there see as much distress as was to be met with in any part of England.

said, as the noble lord had imputed unfair motives to those who had voted against the property tax on Monday last, it was impossible for him to refrain from making a few observations—

spoke to order. The hon. gentleman had attributed words to him which he had not used. He did not state that gentlemen were actuated by improper motives. All he observed was, that the tax fell heavier on the higher than the lower orders of the people. So far from imputing undue motives to those who opposed the tax, he had declared his belief, that they were not swayed by any considerations but those of the most liberal nature.

submitted to the consideration of the House, whether he was not warranted in what he had said (Cries of order!).

If an hon. member has any improper conduct imputed to him, and denies it, the business cannot be carried farther.

I hope it will be recollected, that, besides denying the statement, I referred to facts to prove that I was correct.

then proceeded to state his opinion, as to the cause which induced ministers to abandon the war malt tax. This, he conceived, had been done, in some degree, with a view to recover that popularity which they had very justly acquired, and which they had since very foolishly thrown away, by attempting to force on the people a measure in the highest degree obnoxious. As to the motives by which the majority of Monday night last were swayed, he considered them to be founded on impartiality and justice. The public would go over the list of the majority and the minority, name by name, and they would, at once, perceive the true motives by which members on each side of the question were actuated in giving their votes. They would, on that, as on every other occasion, do justice to that honourable House for standing up, as it had done, to maintain the rights, and support the petitions of the people.

could not congratulate the House, as some gentlemen had done, on the vote of Monday night. Had the property tax been carried, as he hoped it would have been, he would then have expected to see other taxes reduced. But now he could not help expressing his astonishment at the conduct of his majesty's ministers, in proposing to abandon the war malt tax. He was surprised, after ministers had stated the absolute necessity of the property tax, for the purpose of keeping up public credit, and of raising a large portion of the supply within the year, that they should now come down, and state their intention of removing another very important tax. He never felt more disappointment in his life than on the present occasion, when he found ministers pursuing a course which seemed to him like asking for popularity.

said, that so far from being surprised, as the noble lord appeared to be, at the conduct of ministers, in giving up the war malt tax, he should wonder very much indeed, if they did not also abandon the agricultural horse tax, which was most injurious and oppressive.

presented a petition from the landholders, yeomen, and farmers in the county of Cumberland, praying for relief, in the present distressed state of the agricultural interest. The petition having been read, the hon. gentleman proceeded to observe, that he felt some regret at the delay of another week, which it appeared was to take place before the distressed state of the agricultural interest would be taken into consideration. He hoped, however, that due weight would be given to the petitions on this subject, and expressed his conviction, that there was not a landlord in the country, unless amongst those that were immediately connected with government, who did not wish to join the petitioners in this instance. The noble lord could not be intimately acquainted with the distresses of the agricultural interest. If he were, he was sure he never would have used the language attributed to him; namely, that the country was in a most flourishing situation. The petition which he now presented was not signed by persons hostile to the noble lord. The petitioners had supported him and the government to which he belonged, but their necessities now compelled them to speak, In the course of two days, the petition was signed by 500 persons; and, had sufficient notice been given, he believed every gentleman and every farmer in Cumberland would have affixed his name to it, The distress was so excessive, that, if speedy relief were not granted, hundreds of farms would be entirely abandoned. The hon. gentleman then contended, that the distress did not arise, as had been stated, from a surplus produce. During a period of thirty years, there had been no surplus produce, except in the year 1792, when there was an overplus of 30,000 quarters. The distress originated from the immense extent of importation, joined to the deficiency of crops, at different times. In consequence of this, the prices fell; and they had, in consequence of pecuniary distress, continued to fall ever since. The hon. gentleman then shortly argued, that the income tax fell more severely upon the poor than on the rich, inasmuch as the land-owner and farmer were prevented, by its pressure, from employing servants and labourers. The property of the wealthy was the riches of the poor, and it was the pressure of taxation on the former that bore oppressively on the lower classes. He was glad to hear that the war malt tax was to be given up; but there were other taxes, amongst them that on husbandry horses, which ought also to be remitted. On a farm of 70l. a year, the income tax was only 7s.; but if the farmer kept a horse he was charged 2l. 17s. per annum for it, and 7s. for a groom, making a gross sum of 3l.4s In making his return also, the farmer was obliged to swear, that neither he nor any of his family had used any horse for riding, if he wished to escape the tax. Now, he would put it to the House, how very difficult it was for any man to make such an affidavit. In the last year, there were 97 appeals against the charge, in the county where he resided, of which 94 were allowed. This, surely, was such a temptation to the crime of perjury, as ought not to be permitted for an hour.

said, that the property tax being abandoned, and the war malt duty given up, he could not conceive what more gentlemen could wish for. These were the two great burthens which pressed on the agricultural interest, and their removal would be productive of the best effects. As to the motives which had induced ministers to abandon the latter, he did not think there was any necessity to examine them. In a public point of view they were of no importance. He would not say, as some gentlemen had, that they were courting popularity; but he felt that they deserved it; and no man was more ready to applaud them than he was, because they had attended to the voice of parliament.

deprecated the idea, that, by doing away the property tax it was intended to relieve the rich at the expense of the poor. He argued that the reverse was the fact, and exemplified his position by adverting to his own situation. He, like every other gentleman who had a country residence, employed himself in improving it, as far as his circumstances would admit. Now, if the tax-gatherer called on him for 10l. per cent. on his in- come, he must have it; but, if he made no such demand, that money would be laid out in the village, where he resided, with those who employed servants, or it would be expended in supporting labourers whom he himself hired, by which means the industry of the people was encouraged. As to voting from interested motives, he should at once do away that supposition, by stating, that he should pay just as much, at present, as if the tax were continued for two years. For the last eighteen months, mercantile men had made no profits. They had, in fact, encountered severe losses. The same depression of price which the farmers complained of, affected the manufactures of the country, of which the merchants were the great holders. Now, he had been called on to pay the same property tax which he had been charged, during the three former years. He postponed paying the money into the bank, until he knew the result of the proposition for renewing the tax. If it had been carried, he would have returned nil, as he had made no profit; but now, as the measure was defeated, sooner than submit the inspection of his most private affairs to the inquisitorial powers of the commissioner, he would give up a large sum of money, not one iota of which could legally have been demanded of him. He would now pay 10 per cent. into the bank on profits he had never received, which would amount to as much as 5 per cent. for two years, had the tax been continued. He had, therefore, gained nothing by the abandonment of the tax; and, he believed, the great body of merchants in the city of London stood in the same situation with himself.

said, if the noble lord had known the situation of the country, he never would have pressed a tax which the people were unable to pay. He would have felt for their necessities, and given it up. The noble lord had said, that the tax fell more heavily on the rich than on the poor. If he knew any thing of political economy, he would not have made such a statement. The pressure on the rich man prevented him from employing the poor, who were thus abandoned to want and misery. If the noble lord visited his (sir James's) parish, he might there see 200 able-bodied men—sound wind and limb—soliciting to be employed as extra-watchmen, or in any other way whatever. Those who voted against the tax, scorned the idea of shifting a burthen from their own shoulders to those of others. He acted from conscientious motives. He felt himself reluctantly called on to vote against persons whom he considered as the saviours of the country. Government could not relieve the people from all taxation, but he was glad they had remitted the malt tax, which would have a beneficial effect on the morals of the people, by bringing them back to the consumption of a wholesome beverage, instead of frequenting gin-shops, as they did at present.

hoped it would not be supposed, in consequence of the abandonment of the malt tax, and of his postponement of the notice relative to the state of agriculture, that he intended to withdraw his motion altogether.

said, that he should turn his mind, as much as possible, to the proposition of the hon. member, for the purpose of using his best efforts to procure the necessary relief.

The petition was then ordered to be referred to the committee on the distressed state of the agriculture of the kingdom.

rose to move for certain papers relative to the salaries of clerks in the admiralty. The noble lord said, he had heard that considerable abuses had taken place in increasing the salaries of those persons. It had been represented to him, that several senior clerks had been removed on large pensions, and that junior clerks had been promoted at a very large increase of salary, in opposition to the expectations which the country had entertained of the economy of ministers, and in direct violation of a bill which had been introduced into that House by an hon. member who was not then present. This subject was more worthy of consideration, after the solemn pledge of economy which had been given by the Crown. If the noble lord and his colleagues were really desirous of relieving the distresses of the country, he thought they would readily acquiesce in this motion. He then moved,"That there be laid before this House, an account of the number of the clerks of the admiralty, and the rate of their salaries, for the years ending 1815 and 1816; and also the number of persons borne upon the establishment of the admiralty who have been removed, or have retired from the service, since the 31st of December 1814s specifying the amount of compensation granted to each individual, and the period of their respective services, or the grounds on which such compensation has been granted to them."

said, that all the papers were already before the House. The noble lord would find, in the estimates proposed, the number of clerks of the admiralty intended to be kept this year, and those who had retired, with the amount of their compensations. He would find the same statement for the previous year, on looking at the estimates of that year. If the noble lord chose that the clerk should take the trouble of making the return, he certainly should have no objection to its being done. He had stated thus much in order that the country should not be misled, and should not think there was an increase, when there really was a diminution.

expressed his intention of persisting in the motion, because the papers now before the House would not afford him an opportunity of comparing the expenses of 1814 with those of 1815, which he was anxious to do.

did not think that the clerks in the admiralty who executed their duties were overpaid; and he thought it would be a very poor economy to grudge them a sufficient remuneration for their services. He then alluded to the situation of the midshipmen. He had understood from the statement of an hon. member, on a former night, that midshipmen who had served six years had been promoted; he had since found that that was not always the case. He thought such individuals entitled to some remuneration, as well as those who had not quite finished their six years service.

assured the hon. baronet that he had been misinformed. All midshipmen who had served six years had been provided for. That was not of course the case with those who had not been the same length of time in the service.

wished to know, whether the order in council of the 30th January 1816, and the secretary of the admiralty's own letters, were on the table of the House.

stated, that the order in council was, but not his letters, as they had not been moved for, but he should have no objection to produce them.

expressed his intention of moving for their production.

said, that notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. baronet, he knew some individuals who had served in the navy seven years without being promoted.

had been misunderstood if it was thought he had said that all midshipmen who had served six years had been promoted; that would have been impossible. Those who had eight years' service had met with promotion, but those who had only six had been provided for by employment being given them when they desired it.

asked in what manner they had been employed?

replied, that the midshipmen who had served six years had been provided for by being appointed to ships in commission; those who had eight years' service had been made lieutenants.

The motion was agreed to.

Lord Milton moved, for the appointment of Master George as secretary to the province of Nova Scotia, specifying his age, and the date of his appointment.

suggested, that the name of the school at which the young gentleman was educated should be added to the return—[A laugh].

The motion was agreed to.

rose, pursuant to a notice which he had given, to bring under the notice of the House, the order in council by which the salaries of the secretaries to the admiralty were to be regulated in time of peace. He said it was a subject as important as had ever come under the attention of parliament; but at the same time he could assure the noble lord he had no wish to condemn the government unheard. There were positive facts, however, which justified him in complaining of the evil, and the onus probandi would devolve upon the ministers, to show that no breach had been made in the promise from the Crown, that economy should be attended to, by proving the absolute necessity of the case in question. He brought the matter for ward, perfectly uninfluenced by any thing like party feeling. It could not, indeed, be supposed, that he was one who would lightly cavil at the proceedings of government, when he had been among the foremost to support their measures, so long as he thought they deserved support; but he would never afford that support, when he saw that the proceedings of ministers were calculated to promote neither the glory nor the prosperity of the country.—He should first of all beg leave to read some extracts from papers which had been laid upon the table of that House, to prove the little attention which was really paid to economy and retrenchment. It appeared from those documents that in the excise office, for example, the salaries of two of the chairmen of that office had been raised from 1700l. to 2000l. a year each; and the salaries of four commissioners, from 1200l. to 1400l. annually. In the board of customs a similar increase had taken place, the salaries of the chairman being augmented from 1200l. to 1500l. per annum, and those of the commissioners from 800l. to 1000l. Such were some of the proofs of the disposition on the part of government to redeem that pledge of economy, which had been put into the speech of the Prince Regent at the opening of parliament. He now came to the most important of those documents, he meant the copy of the order in council, relating to the salaries in war and peace of the secretaries to the admiralty. That order was dated the 21st of June 1815, and set forth that"Whereas his majesty was graciously pleased, by his order in council of the 15th of January 1800, to direct, that a difference should be made in the salaries of our secretaries and clerks in times of war and of peace, namely, an increase in time of war of one-fourth in the salaries of the secretaries, and one-fifth in those of their clerks. And whereas, this distinction does not exist in any other department of government, not even in those dependent on this office, nor in those whose duties may be considered as most analagous: and whereas, we not only can see no sufficient reason for continuing this principle to this office, as a solitary instance, but entirely agree with the commissioners of naval revision, in the principle laid down in their report of the 13th of June 1805, and which his majesty was pleased to sanction by his order in council of the 28th of October 1807,—' That it is unjust that persons whose whole time, either in war or peace, is required to be devoted to the public service, and who consequently cannot, even in peace, apply to any other occupation, should suffer a material diminution of their incomes when the war ceases;' We do therefore most humbly submit, that your royal highness may be graciously pleased, in the name and on the behalf of the King, to direct that the salaries established as war salaries by the said order in council, and by order in council of the 28th of October 1807, should be the permanent salaries, both in war and peace, of the several persons therein named."With respect to the regulation complained of being a solitary instance, continued the hon. member, there was a very easy way of removing that complaint, by extending the same system to all the other departments of the government. Looking, however, at the question itself as one of economy, he would ask his majesty's ministers whether there was ever such a moment chosen for augmenting the expenses of the country, in the wildest infatuation of ministerial indiscretion? Instead of increasing salaries, they ought to be reduced, not only on account of the unexampled difficulties in which we were placed, but on account of the diminution in price of all the articles of life. He really did not believe that a similar instance could be found in the official details of any government. With respect to the gentlemen who held the different situations in the excise and customs, he wished to be understood as imputing no blame or censure to them; and he trusted that nothing which he had said would draw upon the many invidious accusations. He had precisely the same feeling with respect to the secretaries of the admiralty. He took up the question entirely upon public grounds. Why did the government increase the salaries? Had the duties of the different offices been increased? Certainly not. If, however, the government were permitted to do those things without check or control, the duty of that House, in watching over the expenditure of the public money, would degenerate into mere form. He called upon every member who heard him, and who was anxious for the prosperity of the country, and who knew its distresses, to prove by their vote that night, that the resources of the nation were not to be squandered away by the improvident prodigality of ministers. They might be again, perhaps, reproached with exciting clamour, because they kept a strict watch over the conduct of government. If it was clamour, he was willing to take his share of the reproach; to such clamour, however, we owed the possession of that liberty we still enjoyed, and he would remind the people of England, that it was to such clamour that they were not now harnessed with the property tax—[Hear, hear!]. The hon. member then concluded, with moving,"that this House does approve of the order in council of the 15th of January, 1800, fixing the salaries of the secretaries of the admiralty at a lower rate in time of peace than in time of war, and does consider the departure from this order, in the order of council of the 21st of June 1815, by which an increase of salary is conferred on the secretaries, as highly unwarrantable."The second motion was for a copy of the correspondence between the commissioners of revenue and the treasury board, on the subject of an increase of salary since the 5th of January, 1815.

denied that he had ever denominated as clamour the fair and legitimate discussions in that House. But he still contended, that there was a disposition in the honourable gentlemen opposite to clamour down the government by assuming that there was no disposition on the part of government to fulfil its pledge before any means were allowed by which, in fact, ministers could make known their intentions. It was that species of conduct of which he complained, and which he considered to be nothing better than mere clamour. With respect to the present question, he was perfectly ready to concur with the hon. gentleman, that it was one of great importance, as tending to put at issue the general principles of economy by which the government had regulated its proceedings; and though the particular sum involved in the motion of the hon. member, was not of much importance, yet it did, in fact, derive a degree of importance as illustrating those general principles. He hoped, however, that the members of that House, while they were discharging what they considered their duty to their constituents, by endeavouring to compel the government to adopt measures of economy, would not, at the same time, refuse to government a fair opportunity of explaining their measures to parliament, by which alone it could be determined whether ministers were disposed to practise a due economy, or to indulge in a lavish waste of the public money. There were, in fact, many retrenchments which had already been carried into effect, and many more which were in progress; and as a proof of the anxious disposition of government to practise seriously that economy which had been recommended, and which was so essential, he would submit a rough statement of some of the reductions which had already taken place. In a few days he hoped to be able to lay before parliament different documents, which would satisfactorily show the nature and extent, not only of what had been done, but of what was in progress, and what was in contemplation; meanwhile he should state such reduction as had taken place in those departments with which he was acquainted.

In the office of the secretary of state for the war department, seven clerks, one writer, one interpreter, and one under secretary had been reduced, making a saving of between 3 and 4,000l. per annum: in the war office considerable reductions were made in 1814, and further reductions would be made as soon as the weighty accounts of that office were made up; but he was sure the honourable gentlemen opposite would consider it as a very false economy to leave the military accounts unaudited. There were 18 departments in all that would be effected by the present reduction, but at present he should enumerate only the most important [On a question put by Mr. Tierney, as to the amount of the saving in the war-office, his lordship replied, that he was only now making a rough statement, and could not answer with accuracy]. In the paymaster-general's office there would be saved in the establishment abroad 31,000l. per annum; fourteen clerks would be reduced at home, whose salaries amount to 1,170l.; and other establishments would be reduced abroad, amounting to 7,900l. The whole saving would be 41,000l. in this department. In the commissariat department, eleven officers and eleven clerks would be reduced, which, with other savings, would amount to 14,000l. at home; 159 officers and 629 clerks would be reduced abroad, which would effect an aggregate saving of 100,000l. In the store-keeper-general's office, there was a reduction of 6,894l. and there would be a further reduction of 3,400l. as soon as the arrears were settled: the total saving would not be less than 10,000l. The barrack department would be reduced from a scale of 90,000 men to 40,000, and 88 officers would be discontinued, whose salaries amounted to 7,190l. The reason why barracks were larger than might be required for the real number of men to occupy them, was because many of them were substantial buildings, which it would be no economy to pull down, or to suffer to fall into decay. In the admiralty there would be a reduction of 24 clerks and nine messengers, by which 5,000l. would be saved, and 2,000l. more on the death and falling in of the salaries of certain retired servants. In the navy department several establishments would be wholly discontinued, 5,100 persons discharged, and a saving effected in all of 402,000l. There was a reduction in the victualling office, by which a saving of 25,000l. was effected, and there would be a further saving to the same amount in the wages of artificers and men now employed. The transport office would be entirely discontinued, leaving to the navy board and admiralty the duty that might arise in time of peace. No returns had yet been made from the ordnance office; but he only wished to show that ministers had really been occupied in the retrenchments they had proposed; the total amounted to 571,000l. to which 81,000l. more would shortly be added, making a total of 650,000l.—He had only said thus much to satisfy the hon. member who made the motion, that economy had not been neglected; and he trusted he had succeeded in satisfying him, and the House also, that his majesty's ministers had not been merely employed in creating offices and augmenting salaries.

He should now come to the particular question before the House, and give such explanations as the House had a right to demand. With respect to making the additions to these salaries, he should state the circumstances under which the commissioners had given their report; and he had no objection to produce the correspondence, because he did not suppose that the hon. gentleman meant to take the sense of the House, but merely to gain information on the question. That question did not take its origin in the present day, but as far back as 1806, when the gentlemen on the other side were in administration. There was then a representation to the treasury, that from the great accumulation of business these parties were entitled to an increase of salary. The treasury did not comply; but on application being again made in Mr. Perceval's administration, and the increase of business being urged, he did hold out that the claim should be satisfied as soon as the restoration of peace permitted it. The House should consider the nature of the duties in which these parties were employed; they collected a revenue of 40 millions for the public, and of that 21 millions had been added since any augmentation of their salaries had taken place. He did not, however, press on the House merely the length of time that had elapsed since the last augmentation, or the vast increase of labour that had been added; but he must observe, that there was no better economy than to stimulate the exertions of officers so usefully employed for the public. The services of that department were most meritorious in the eyes of the treasury; but it was not merely thus—it was not merely that an increase of labour and responsibility had been added—but the treasury had also made an arrangement which transferred to another quarter much of the patronage which had formerly been enjoyed by these officers; it was on these grounds, therefore, taken altogether, that the increase of salary had been proposed. The noble lord hoped that the country would never become so poor as to be prevented from stimulating the exertions of meritorious servants of the public by adequate reward. When it was considered how important were the offices filled by those whose salaries were in question, and how conducive it was to the interests of the nation that they should perform their duties well; when it was considered that their labours had of late been so much raised, and that forty millions of the public money now passed through their hands and was under their control, it would not be thought that 7,500l. divided among the whole was an exorbitant increase of pay. The sum was given, too, it was to be considered, after due deliberation, after expectations repeatedly held out, and after various representations had been made to different administrations. With regard to the question of prices, and the necessity of reduction rather than increase from the fall of the articles of living, he did not think it necessary to say much. It must be allowed that provisions had fallen in price, such as bread and meat; but in other respects there had been no great reduction. Upon the general average of those articles on which an income like that of the persons in question was expended, it would be found that there was no great fall of prices; or, that, consistently with the same degree of comforts, any extent of expenditure could be spared. Upon these grounds the treasury acted in recommending a rise of salary; and he hoped that the House would not allow a fall in the price of a few articles of living, which might be only temporary, to be pleaded in bar of an arrangement made on considerations of an increase of duty, and so long contemplated by the officers interested.

Having said thus much with respect to the officers of the excise and customs, and the other topics embraced by the hon. gentleman's speech, he would proceed to give his reasons for moving the previous question on the resolution with regard to the pay of the secretaries of the admiralty, with which the hon. gentleman had concluded. But he would first request the clerk to read over the resolution [It was accordingly read]. The noble lord, resuming the discussion, contended, that the resolution proceeded upon a partial and mixed view of the question. It had stated, with approbation, the principle laid down in 1800, and censured the departure from it which had taken place last summer; but it applied that principle only to one office, while its operation, if carried into complete effect, would extend over several; and approved of the principle of making a difference between the peace and war salaries of the offices connected with the admiralty, in the terms of the recommendation that at first established it; but, in coming to the application of that principle, it mentioned only the salaries of the secretaries. There were two questions that suggested themselves with regard to the subject under consideration: namely, whether the principle of the order in council of 1800 was so wise and just that it should not be departed from? or whether, supposing it set aside, the salaries of the secretaries was too high on the grounds of economy and expediency. If the principle of 1800 were alone to be regarded, without any fresh examination of its merits as applied to existing circumstances, then the clerks should have been included in the resolution of the honourable gentleman as well the secretaries, as the original regulation equally comprehended both. If, on the other hand, it was to be made a question, standing on its own grounds, whether it was proper to reduce the salaries of the secretaries as distinct from that of the clerks, then a proper opportunity would occur for its discussion when the business came regularly before parliament. It would be recollected, that when the pay of a certain officer was alleged to be too great, the consideration of it was postponed till the army estimates, in which it was included, came before the House, and that a resolution was then moved that it should be reduced by a certain specific amount. The noble lord advised the same course to be pursued on the present occasion, and deprecated discussion till the proper season for deliberation arrived. The honourable gentleman took a different course. He required the sanction of the House to the principle laid down in 1800, in contradistinction to that acted upon in 1815. He would again repeat, that this principle included the clerks as well as the secretaries; and that the resolution now moved would therefore, if adopted, actually go the length of modifying a measure which it professed unqualifiedly to recommend. The hon. gentleman was in error when he proceeded on the supposition that the principle of 1800 was never interfered with till the present instance occurred. The truth was, that the principle of establishing a difference between war and peace salaries had extended at first more generally to officers connected with the navy, and had been restricted in its operation in 1807.

The noble lord said, that the House would now expect some explanation from him of the reasons which had induced the board of admiralty to recommend to the treasury that rise of salary for which an order in council had subsequently been obtained; and he owed it to his hon. friend, the secretary of the admiralty (Mr. Croker), whose name and character had been implicated, to enter fairly into such an explanation. He was authorized by the noble lord at the head of that board in stating that the hon. secretary exerted no influence, nor made any suggestion, of a wish to obtain an increase of salary, and that the subject was brought under the review of government by circumstances over which he exerted no control. The hon. secretary foresaw that any interference might be made a personal charge against him, and therefore kept aloof from all interference or solicitation. The subject was maturely considered and deliberated upon by the board of admiralty, by the first lord of the treasury, and his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer, before the order in council was recommended; but in all these consultations the hon. secretary took no share. He neither solicited an advance of salary, nor would he have felt any mortification at a reduction, if such a reduction had been considered wise and politic. The question with regard to him arose during the consideration of the interests of others whom the principle of 1800 affected. It would be recollected, that the regulation fixing the reduction of the salaries of the secretaries at one-fourth in time of peace struck off from the salaries of the clerks the proportion of one fifth. When, therefore, the peace was concluded with America, in March last, the period of reduction was conceived to have arrived; and as the war with France, though then it bad not commenced, soon afterwards occurred, it naturally became a subject of deliberation how the officers who came under the regulation of 1800 should be paid. There was no interval of real peace, because the ratification of the treaty with America, and the re-appearance of Buonaparté in France, were almost simultaneous; but there was an absence of declared war with vigorous preparations for actual hostilities. How, then, were these officers to be remunerated? Was one-fifth to be deducted from their income upon the principle of reduced labour, while there was no diminution of labour; and were they to be placed in a worse situation than any other class of public servants? The government, taking the subject under consideration, came to an opinion, that it was better to recommend a continuance of the war salary in time of peace, by abandoning the principle of 1800, than to increase the peace salary to the extent rendered necessary, with an adherence to the principle of the two rates. This rise in peace, which would be permanent, and would render no rise in war necessary, seemed to them true economy. The only thing, then, to be considered was, whether the hon. secretary should not participate in the rise, or whether he was to be the only exception to the rule adopted? Upon this there could scarcely be a difference of opinion. He could take upon himself to say that there was not in the whole circle of government any office more important than that which was so ably filled by his hon. friend; not merely on account of the labour attached to it, but on account of the necessity that it should be in the hands of a gentleman of high honour and character, that the secrets on which the whole welfare of our navy depended might be safe in his hands. The scale adopted formerly in regulating the salary of this officer had been influenced rather by the difference of the amount of fees in war and peace, of which the emoluments formerly consisted, than on the duties to be performed. The establishment of the navy was also much increased since 1800. Our ordinary was greater, and our naval force in commission was greater than in any former peace. Not less than 100 sail of vessels connected with the revenue had been transferred to the department of the admiralty, which entailed an addition of much laborious business on the secretary. The great mass of business was such that it required to be followed up with assiduity; and the idea was not correct, that the secretary could be a gentleman at large at any time. As far as salary could countenance the idea, it was proper to let it be known, that this office was one of toil and labour in peace as well as in war. This increase of salary it was to be recollected had not been carried into effect now, but soon after the battle of Waterloo, when the war was not concluded, and, when if the oracles of the other side of the House were consulted, it would have been pronounced to have been far from its conclusion. The whole question would be open for discussion, when the estimates were before the House, which as the objection was not to the general principle, but a particular office, would be the proper time for deciding on it. The House might then fairly deliberate, whether an office not inferior in laboriousness to any in the state, not excepting those of the cabinet, would be overpaid by 4000l. a-year, and they would be relieved from all delicacy as to his hon. friend by what he had stated. Convinced, therefore, that this was not the proper time for discussion, although he by no means deprecated discussion when the proper time should arrive, he would move that, the House proceed to the other orders of the day.

said he had heard nothing in the noble lord's speech which had convinced him of the impropriety of the motion. The second secretary of the admiralty had never till this time been considered a permanent officer. If the two secretaries felt indisposed to the increase of their salaries, their refusal to receive it would be very acceptable to the country. The ministers, who were fond of praising Mr. Burke without any desire to imitate him might have found in his writings, on the subject of economy, some useful information. However desirable such an increase of salaries was at other times the, necessities of the country now outweighed every other consideration. The hon. member who had introduced the subject was entitled to the utmost praise for bringing the matter before the House.

said, it was not a sufficient answer to the arguments of the hon. mover, to say that his motion did not include the clerks as well as the secretaries; but it should be shown how that which in 1800 was wise and good, and which was followed in 1802, was now departed from. He did not place much reliance on the opinion of the board of revision—a board which was essentially different from that of naval inquiry. The first-mentioned board appeared to have been appointed to undo the real reform which had been effected by the last. If the order in council of last year was referred to, it would be seen that the words were"Whereas since the ratification of the treaty of peace with the united states of America, the naval force of the country, and the consequent business of this department, has from political circumstances, not been considerably reduced below the war establishment."This might be applicable last June, but it was not applicable now [Hear, hear!]. With regard to the suggestion, that when the estimates were before the House, the question of the increase of salary might be best discussed, he remembered that the office of joint paymaster of the forces had been once brought into discussion when the army estimates were under consideration. What was the event? The ministers said, that it would be better to put off that discussion till the bill of an hon. member (Mr. Bankes) was brought in. The discussion was accordingly put off, and the office was included in the bill;—that bill passed the House, and the office still existed. He should agree to the motion, because he thought the increase of salary to the secretaries was a culpable attempt to expend the public money, and such a resolution was a better method of expressing the sense of the House, than merely to reduce the estimates. It was said, that there was an increase of duty at the admiralty on account of the hundred revenue cutters which had been transferred to that department; but if this justified an increase of salaries at the admiralty, did it not justify a diminution in the department from which the business had been taken away?

said, that whether the House adopted or rejected the principle that there should be a difference in salaries, in war and peace, it could not be argued that the ministers were culpable in acting on it. For if to act on this principle were culpable, the government was not only to blame with respect to the admiralty, but the navy and other departments. But if the principle was relinquished, and it was only said that the hon. secretary was paid beyond his exertions or services, he would by no means admit the justness of the assertion. He was himself acquainted with the duties of the admiralty board, and could declare from experience, that if 4000l. was too much in time of peace, it was too little in time of war. There was no office under the Crown that, required more unremitting exertion, or that more completely absorbed all the faculties both of body and mind of the person who held it. Adverting to an observation which had been made, on the office of the joint paymasters of the army, he said, that though there were two paymasters, there was only one salary; and though he himself held two offices, he could only draw the emoluments of one.

said, he had felt it his duty to support the property tax, because it was an economical tax. Having supported that tax on the principle of economy, it became more imperative on him to support the application of the same principle in the reduction of all unnecessary expenditure. On this subject the country had a strong feeling, and it was of great importance that the House should unite the affections of the country, without which their strength would be weakness. It was unfair to contrast the great reduction which had been made with the small reduction which was now proposed. They might indeed regret that the reduction was so small, but it was not the less their duty to attend to the minutest items. It was to be recollected that the taxes did not meet our expenditure, and that loans must be raised to defray any increase of salaries. He therefore, at this time especially, deprecated the increase of the salaries of the gentlemen who were the subject of the motion. At least these gentlemen might give up a part of their emoluments. If it was admitted that the labour of twelve hours in the day were adequately paid by a salary of 4000l. a year, surely the labour of six hours in the day would be adequately paid by a salary of 3000l. a year.

observed, that every one who had heard the sensible and judicious observations of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, must allow that he had recommended the adoption of the motion before them on the true grounds on which it ought to be adopted. He trusted that those grounds would receive the sanction of the House. It was exactly on matters such as these, which involved the principle of economy, and which were in reality of more importance, as the sum was trifling that the sentiments of parliament ought to be distinctly pronounced. He had been anxious to offer himself to the attention of the House, as soon as he heard the defence of the noble lord, in consequence of the share which he had recently taken in a discussion on the subject, on which occasion the noble lord desired the House to suspend their judgment, until he explained the transaction, or, to use the noble lord's own words,"until he had been heard in his defence."The noble lord's explanation had now been heard. The noble lord had been heard in the defence, not only of this particular measure, but of the general conduct of government with respect to matters of retrenchment, since the conclusion of the war; and he must in his conscience say that to a more lame and impotent defence he had never listened Although the noble lord would probably give no credit to the assertion, he declared that he had attended to the noble lord's speech with the utmost anxiety for its success—not in defending the transaction, for that was impossible—but in explaining it away in a manner that might be satisfactory. He had entertained little doubt that he should hear from the noble lord to-night, after the decision of that House on Monday last, that it had never been meant permanently to increase the salaries in question. But not so; no such explanation was given by the noble lord; and the House were told that it was necessary in time of peace to raise the salaries of those two public officers, in spite of the diminution of their labours, and in spite of the distresses of the times.

He would not follow the noble lord into the general question of the retrenchments which it seamed had lately occupied the attention of his majesty's government, because an early opportunity would occur for taking a more distinct view of their extent and value. But even at the present moment, when only a general esti- mate of those retrenchments had been exhibited by the noble lord, an estimate in which it would be too much to expect accuracy, new as his majesty's ministers were to the work, and unskilful artists as they must necessarily be upon it; still, in his humble opinion, even that general and inaccurate estimate called for one or two observations. In the first place, the noble lord had stated, generally, that in the department of the war secretary no less than seven officers had been dismissed, besides an under secretary. But why was not the office itself abolished? It had been created for war alone. When, on a former occasion, an hon. friend of his had moved for its abolition, he had been answered"What would you abolish this office while we are at war, while the duties of it are so important and so numerous, while the contest rages from one extremity of the world to the other, while expeditions are preparing for the West Indies, for the Baltic, for Holland, in short, for all parts of the world, is that the time you would adopt for closing an office of utility so extensive?"It was on this ground that his hon. friend's motion was rejected. The inference was, that at the close of the war the office might be abolished without disadvantage; and he confessed that he had expected to hear, when the noble lord to night opened his budget of retrenchments he had, perhaps with an ignorant impatience, expected to hear, that the first article would be to cut off this office, root and branch; instead of which the country was to be put off with the reduction of seven officers and an under secretary.

There was another part of the noble lord's statement on which he wished to say a few words. The noble lord had talked very largely of the reduction, in the admiralty, of several clerks, and—which had a most splendid and cheering sound—4 or 5000 office bearers, whose salaries amounted to between 4 and 500,000l. This certainly looked like doing business. But it turned out that these 4 or 5000 office bearers were so many artificers, at the pay of a shilling a day— very respectable persons indeed, much more respectable than many individuals serving under government, who did much less work and received much more emolument—but still mere gangs of workmen employed in the dock-yards! Why, the war being at an end, those artificers must be discharged. Was it to be sup- posed that they were to go on making blocks, and forging anchors, and twisting ropes? Their discharge was indispensable; and yet it formed more than four parts in five of the noble lord's boasted and paraded retrenchments! The war being at an end, government with all their disposition to maintain large establishments, could find no shadow of excuse for retaining those men, and then they took great credit for discharging them! The charge which he made against the noble lord was—not merely as it had been said on a recent night, that with one hand he created new offices and increased the salaries of the old ones, while with the other he cut off the offices which the termination of the war had rendered unnecessary—but that with both hands, with might and main, the noble lord increased the number of new offices, and the salaries of the old; and that with neither hand he cut off any office for the continuance of which it was possible to advance any pretext, however trifling or absurd—[Hear, hear!]. Such was the amount of the credit which his majesty's ministers deserved for their operations in retrenchment. In the case to which he had just alluded, it appeared that 5000 out of the 5300 abolitions were produced by the dismissal of artificers, and that above 400,000l. of the 500,000l. saved to the country, arose from the cessation of their wages. What an attempt was this to deceive—if he might use the expression—to gull, to blind parliament and the country—[Hear, hear!].

There was still another topic that deserved to be noticed—the commissariat. The noble lord boasted, that 100 or 150 clerks had been cut off from this department. But was it possible that they could be retained? In the peninsula they were of great utility, but to talk of keeping them up now would be ridiculous. The result of the noble lord's magnificent statement, therefore, was, that two or three dozen offices had been abolished, which there was no shadow of a pretext for retaining, and 40 or 50,000l. a year saved, which there was no shadow of a pretext for paying. And this was what the public were to get as the ridemption on the part of his majesty's government of their pledge of economy and retrenchment [Hear, hear!].

He now came to the consideration of the question before the House, namely, the increase—for so it was—during a time of profound peace, of the salaries of two officers whose duties were urgent only during a time of active war. The noble lord had made many remarks on the mode in which this question had been brought forward. The answer was, that it was enough for the House to discuss one question at once. When they should have disposed of the question before them, as he hoped and believed they would dispose of it, there would be ample time to enter on the investigation of the other retrenchments that were necessary, and to argue and determine the principle on which those retrenchments should proceed. At present no man could doubt the nature of the question before them. It was simply this—whether Mr. Croker (he had a right, although the hon. gentleman was a member of that House, to name him when he spoke of him in his official and not in his legislative capacity) and Mr. Barrow, the two secretaries of the admiralty, should have an increase of salary, the one of 1,000l. in addition to 3,000l. the other of 500l. in addition to 1,500l.? And this too at a time when every article of life was diminished in price 30 or 40 per cent., when compared with its price two or three years ago. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer shook his head at this. It was true the right hon. gentleman had argued that this depreciation would not be permanent. But why raise the salaries of these gentlemen while it continued [Hear, hear!]? The argument of the right hon. gentleman was, that although it was true that the prices of the articles of life were less than when sir Evan Nepean was secretary, and that Mr. Croker could therefore live more cheaply than sir Evan Nepean, yet that, for aught the House knew, this depreciation was temporary, and that three or four years hence things might be in a very different situation. His first answer was, that it was true they might be so, and then Mr. Croker would be in the same situation as that in which sir Evan Nepean had been. Why should he be in a better? The character, the abilities, and the industry of sir Evan Nepean were well known. They had been proved by those dispatches, evincing transcendent talents, which he had written, and by that indefatigable labour which he had undergone in the early period of the late war, when it raged in every part of the world. His duties had indeed absorbed the faculties of his body and mind. He had scarcely enjoyed the blessings of rest, sleeping only three or four hours out of the twenty-four, and hardly ever breathing any atmosphere but that of his office. And for all this sir Evan Nepean enjoyed only that 4,000l. a year to which it was proposed to raise Mr. Croker's salary in time of peace. His next answer to the right hon. gentleman was, why raise Mr. Croker's salary, until the rise in the articles of necessary consumption? Let him wait until, contrary to every expectation at the present moment, the price of those articles should return to what it was three or four years ago. The only object of the proposition was to put so much money into Mr. Croker's pocket, at the public expense. It was a most profligate and scandalous waste of the public money. It was a most profligate and scandalous job [Hear, hear!]. It was a job of which every man in the country who paid taxes had a right to cry out to parliament for the punishment, or, at least, for the censure [Hear, hear!]. In this declaration he desired to be understood, as not intending the slightest disrespect to the two gentlemen—he did not mean the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman, for they were the advisers and the accomplices in the transaction [A laugh]; but he disclaimed casting any imputation on Mr. Croker and Mr. Barrow. The noble lord had exculpated the one, by declaring, that so far was he from having procured this job, that he had manifested the utmost repugnance to it. He confessed that he thought it would have been much to the hon. gentleman's honour had he gone a step further—had he completely refused to accept the proffered advantage [Hear, hear!]. No force, even of his majesty's government, could have compelled the hon. gentleman to accept a salary to which he did not conceive himself entitled; and it would certainly have been more creditable to him had he shown himself more stout and determined on the subject, instead of having evinced merely that coyness which had not deterred his friends from the adoption of the course that they had pursued. With regard to Mr. Barrow, he stood in some respects in a different situation from Mr. Croker. No man could have a greater respect for Mr. Barrow, knowing him only as a public man, than himself. He was a man of great abilities and extensive acquirements. But his office was not one of necessary continuance. If he was rightly informed, it had never existed before the naval ad- ministration of earl Spencer. The country ought naturally to look therefore to the immediate abolition of the office altogether, the gentlemen who held it during the war being allowed to retire with an adequate pension; instead of which this new, and at present useless office, was to have the salary attached to it increased by 500l. a year! At any rate, why the increase? During the peace of Amiens the salary of Mr. Barrow's office was 1,500l., the salary of Mr. Croker's was 3,000l. What difference was there between the circumstances of the peace of Amiens and the peace of Paris, which should make any difference of salary necessary, except the circumstance that the peace of Paris was likely to be more lasting than the peace of Amiens? These were the difficulties against which the noble lord had to contend in reconciling the country to this measure. Hitherto no semblance of explanation had been uttered. It had indeed been said, that when gentlemen were taken from private life, and placed in official situations to which all their time was devoted, it was hard suddenly to reduce the emoluments to which they were accustomed. This might be hard upon Mr. Barrow, who, if he remained in office, would not go out with a change in the general administration. But it was not so with Mr. Croker, whose official situation was of such a nature, that if the administration were to be changed tomorrow, he, poor man, must go out of office with the rest, and without having any claim for a permanent salary!

He would now proceed to consider the amount of the proposed sum. After many discussions on the subject, they had at length got the noble lord to say that he would not object to any retrenchment on the ground of its being of inconsiderable amount. He (Mr. Brougham) was far from undervaluing the amount of the sum which it was in this case so desirable to retrench. One thousand a year, though it might appear trifling by the side of the hundreds of thousands and millions of our expenditure, was a sum, the wringing of which from those who had to pay the taxes in this country was in many cases a most distressing operation. That 1,000l. was half the sum which by the army estimates appeared to be the whole amount annually paid to the widows and orphans of those brave soldiers who had fallen in battle [Hear, hear!]; 2,000l. a year to the families of all those who had fought the battles of their country, and 1,000l. a year to the hon. gentleman who had only fought the battles of those ministers on whom parliament had pronounced their opinion, and recorded it by their vote of Monday last [Hear, hear!]! 10l. a year to the widow and orphans of a gallant veteran, and 1,000l. a year to a court favourite [Hear, hear!]! Good God! would the House hesitate for a moment in coming to a vote which should mark their reprobation of such a scandalous transaction, and prevent a repetition of it [Hear, hear!]!

Of the motion proposed by the hon. gentleman he cordially approved, not only because the sum to which it related was considerable, when compared with that allotted to the relief of the families of those who had so nobly served the state,—not only because the imposition of it would augment the misery of those who must be taxed for its production, not only because for that purpose (as appeared from the papers on the table) it might be necessary to issue 3 or 400 exchequer processes, in order to sell the wretched goods and furniture of the unhappy beings against whom they were directed, and thus to force from them their last shilling—not on those grounds alone did he approve of the motion; he approved of it because the sum in itself was so small, and because he wished the House to record their opinion with respect to it [Hear, hear!]. Should he tell the House why he wished this? He wished it, because it would be a pledge to the country that no larger extravagance, that no more momentous profligacy, would be permitted, when it was found that a minor profusion like that now before them could not, in a time like the present, escape the just and virtuous indignation of the Commons of England [Hear, hear!]. That House was indeed, in an awful situation. All eyes in the country were fixed upon them. They were fixed upon them with gratitude for their conduct on Monday—with solicitude for their future conduct. Above all was the nation anxious that parliament should not take fright at what they had done on that day; and that those who had then discharged their duty should not, under the influence of a weak apprehension, endeavour to make up for their firmness on that occasion by subsequent obsequiousness and acquiescence [Hear, hear!]. It had been again, and again, and again said, that the present was the time for the strictest eco- nomy. If that profession meant any thing, let it be proved by the vote of that night. If the House should agree, as he hoped they would, to the motion which an hon. member had so properly made, they would acquire the lasting gratitude of the country. They would for ever deter all persons in authority from squandering the public money. They would shew that no court favour could avail any man a penny, much less avail him 1000l. a year: and that to entitle any one to public remuneration, he must be actively serving the public, and not be the indolent holder of an office kept in existence for the sole purpose of continuing to him its salary [Hear, hear]. He repeated, that if the House consented to the motion of the honourable member, who deserved so well of the public by his having given parliament an opportunity to pronounce their opinion on this question, they would be indeed entitled to the confirmed gratitude of the country. They would prove that it was too late to allow a system of blind and profligate expenditure of the public money, founded, not on the public exigency, but on court favouritism alone, to continue for a single hour [Hear, hear!]. He would have those who had access to persons in high stations remember what had taken place in former days. It was not by squandering one sum, it was not by the commission of one profligate act, it was by the general determination not to regard that universal voice from one end of the island to the other, which loudly cried for retrenchment in the smallest as well as in the greatest of the national expenses—it was the turning of a deaf hear to that awful voice of the people, which proclaimed "there is no such thing in England at present as a trifling or an inconsiderable extravagance."—this was the conduct that threatened the most fatal consequences [Hear, hear!]. Much better would it be to listen to that solemn voice, than to build monuments to the descendants of the victims of legitimacy [Hear, hear, hear!]. Much better would it be, instead of doing honour to that family, to profit by its example [Hear, hear, hear!]; to recollect that by thwarting the prejudices, opposing the wishes, and pressing on the sore places of this nation, they were at length ousted from its throne [Hear, hear, hear!]. And yet their conduct was comparatively harmless and innocent. They were in a great measure betrayed by the tenderness of their consciences, by the nicety of their religious scruples. Far otherwise must those be estimated who entertained no scruples of religion, who experienced no tenderness of conscience; who, in utter disregard of the feelings of an oppressed and insulted nation, proceeded from one wasteful expenditure to another; who decorated and crowded their houses with the splendid results of their extravagance, who associated with the most profligate of human beings; who, when the gaols were filled with wretches, could not suspend for a moment their thoughtless amusements, to end the sad suspense between life and death; who, alone, or surrounded only by an establishment of mercenaries, and unable to trust to the attachment of the nation for their security, yet desired the House of Commons to enable them to lavish on their favourites the money extracted from the pockets of the suffering people of England [Loud cries of Hear, hear, hear!].

expressed his persuasion, that whatever might be the opinion of the House on the salaries in question, whether they might think them too large or too small, there must be but one general feeling of indignation at the unfounded charges, at the unjust imputations, at the unfair and invidious comparisons made by the hon. and learned gentleman, between the amount of those salaries and objects with which they had no kind of connexion [Loud cries of Hear, hear!]. He repeated the terms"unfounded charges"and"unjust imputations;"because the hon. and learned gentleman, after having heard from his noble friend (he would never have heard it from his hon. friend) that it was contrary to the wishes of his hon. friend to have this salary permanently attached to his office, had nevertheless proceeded to characterise the transaction as a scandalous job—[Hear, hear!]. He repeated, that it was a most unfair insinuation to characterise the transaction as a scandalous job, or as proceeding from any considerations of court favour [Hear, hear, hear!]. In the commencement of his speech, the hon. and learned gentleman had professed having listened to his noble friend with an anxious wish to be satisfied, and had intimated that he should have been highly rejoiced if administration had been able to stand on high ground on this subject. Had he not heard this declaration, he confessed, that if he had been desired to name the man in the House to whom such a discovery would have been more painful than to any other, it would have been the hon. and learned gentleman on whom he should have fixed. From the whole tenour of that hon. and learned gentleman's conduct and arguments—from the feeling with which he received every remission of taxation on the part of his majesty's government—from the unaccountable (he was bound not to say intentional) misrepresentations which continually fell from him—and from a variety of other circumstances, he should certainly have considered the hon. and learned gentleman as the last man in that House to whom any retrenchment proposed by his majesty's ministers, and calculated to entitle them to claim the public approbation, would have proved satisfactory or agreeable. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that the question was whether or not 1000l. a year should be added to the salary of the secretary of the admiralty. If that was the question it would be infinitely more proper to postpone it until the navy estimates should be before the House. The hon. mover had fallen into the error of the hon. and learned gentleman, in comparing these salaries with the rewards to those to whom no salaries could sufficiently testify the national gratitude—our gallant defenders. It was impossible to estimate military services by pecuniary considerations. There was something in the profession of arms—something in the nobleness of personal devotion—something in the imminent danger incurred—something in the nature of the glory acquired that mocked all attempt at compensation by money. [Hear, hear!]. If it were possible so to reward deeds of heroism, the debts of that nature due by this country, it would not be in the power of the most wealthy and the most liberal nation in the universe to discharge. But, because the nature and extent of military service prevented them from being thus rewarded, ought the civil servants of the country to be excluded from just remuneration? An hon. gentleman had said, that if such a sum was an adequate compensation for twelve hours labour in the day, such another sum would be an adequate compensation for six hours labour in the day. True—according to the rule of three. But he was sure the House would not be of opinion that the number of hours employed ought to be the criterion of the salary that should be received. The con- fidence reposed in the officer—the nature of the duties entrusted to him—the abstraction from other avocations in life, to which he could never return—all these circumstances were to be considered in the appointment of the salary. The order in council which had been issued on this subject was necessary, but depended for its confirmation on the sanction of the House. The question before them involved this principle—whether the salaries of public offices ought to be lower in time of peace than in time of war? If that principle were to be established, why was it to be acted upon with respect to the admiralty alone? It was always very difficult to say what was the exact amount of salary commensurate with the duties of any official situation. Nothing, however, could be more disadvantageous to the country, than to reduce those salaries so much, as to prevent the offices from being held by any persons who had not also private fortunes. Nothing could be so aristocratic in its tendency, as to deny to public officers a salary, not merely equal to their current expenses, but which should enable them eventually to retire from the public service with comfort and independence.

said, that in the course of the discussion two questions had been brought before the House: first, whether it was right to increase the salaries of persons composing the different revenue boards? Secondly, whether it was right to augment the salaries of the two secretaries of the admiralty, according to the order in council? Upon the first it was unnecessary, at present, to call for the opinion of parliament: but, upon the second, too early a decision could not be bad. Never had a more extraordinary speech than that of the noble lord been heard within the walls of parliament; and never had any speech obtained a more extraordinary reception. The noble lord had commenced with vehemently depreeating all clamour, with his usual design of exciting it among his friends. The purpose, however, had completely failed; for while the noble lord was clamouring against clamour, the gentlemen who sat Bear him observed a most melancholy and disheartening silence. The silence was most profound, and gave a fine opportunity for the display of the musical tones of the noble lord's voice. Thus defeated by his own partisans, the noble lord then threw himself upon his character; no man, he hoped, would refuse to give him credit for a sincere and anxious disposition to promote the utmost economy. But still the same awful silence was preserved. Mr. Tierney said, he had seen unfortunate persons on their trial at the Old Bailey, and the noble lord's situation was scarcely less deplorable or pitiable [Hear, and a laugh]. The poor culprit, driven to his defence, called witnesses to character—so did the noble lord, but none of them answered! His next step still kept up the parallel; for in the extremity of his case he had proceeded to read a long paper, not having any counsel to assist (as was most unhappily too often the situation of the noble lord), in which he endeavoured to show, in the teeth of all the evidence, not only that he was not guilty, but that lie was the most ill-used man that had ever appeared at the bar. As for economy, the noble lord asserted in his paper that it had been the object of his life; that he had lived under various masters in different places, giving universal satisfaction, and evincing an unceasing anxiety to save to the uttermost farthing. Next he set forth the expenses he had spared his employers, and those that he had intended to have spared them, if he had been allowed to continue in service; and it could not be denied that the noble lord had never shown any great anxiety to quit a good place in which he was once firmly seated [Hear, and a laugh]. The prisoner at the Old Bailey usually followed his assertions with a statement of facts—most probably false; and the noble lord had entered into a detail most certainly incomprehensible, concluding with large promises of future good behaviour, customary with persons in the deplorable situation of being put upon their trial.—But to proceed more seriously to the subject of debate, he begged to advert to the reasons urged for augmenting the salaries of the commissioners of customs and excise. The noble lord had stated, that urgent requests for this purpose had been made since 1806, and that they ought now to be granted in consideration of long and meritorious services; but, upon inquiry, it would probably be found that those who filled the offices ten years ago were dead, and then where were the long and meritorious services of their successors? The House would recollect, also, that the retiring pension was regulated by the amount of salary, and that to these places was attached an extensive patronage, which in truth was the reason for the increase. Undoubtedly patronage was valuable; but this was the first time it had been avowedly measured out as worth so many hundreds sterling. In the first place A, on retiring, was to have a pension because he lost the patronage; and B, who succeeded him, was to have an increased salary because he took it: and yet the noble lord had gravely desired the House not to take any alarm, but to leave all matters to his direction, and he would save as much money as possible. This subject, however, was not now to be determined; but in the mean time he requested gentlemen to make inquiries, more especially into the additional labours which formed the excuse for this augmentation. Upon the immediate question—the salaries of the principal secretary of the admiralty, and of a most respectable individual, Mr. Barrow, the under secretary—it was objected, that the discussion could more properly be entered upon in the committee of supply, and a precedent of the paymastership of widows pensions (the abolition of which appeared by none of the documents upon the table) had been cited as an authority. He could not help thinking that the question now came most fairly to issue, and taking it up in this early stage would be an evidence to the country of the anxiety of the House to watch even the most trifling disbursement. It was true that the order in council originated in a similar proceeding when earl Spencer was at the head of the admiralty in 1800; at that time the secretary of the admiralty was paid by fees, which in war amounted to 12 or 14,000l. per annum, though in peace they were less. The committee on the fees of offices in 1786 had recommended that a fixed war salary of 3,000l. a year, and a peace salary of 2,000l., should be given instead of all fees; but earl Spencer, thinking that pay inadequate, had raised each of them 1,000l., and thus they had remained established until the present moment. It was a mistake, therefore, to state that the fixed emolument was 4,000l. a year, unless it were supposed that we should be in a state of perpetual hostilities: l,000l. a year had been added only as a compensation for heavier duties, but the actual amount of salary was only 3,000l. a year, because it was fair to suppose, that the country would enjoy more of the blessings of peace than it would endure the calamities of war. At the peace of Amiens (contrary to the assertions of some hon. gentlemen) sir Evan Nepean had received only 3,000l. a year, with perfect satisfaction; and had he wished to augment it, he must have removed the then first lord of the admiralty, earl St. Vincent, who would never have given his consent—though the noble lord now holding that high station felt no such difficulty. Soon afterwards the board of naval inquiry was appointed, and it was followed by the commission of revision, instituted for the express purpose of undoing what their predecessors had done. That commission was in fact a mere party manœuvre to defeat necessary and wholesome regulations. Of course, when the lords of the admiralty wished to recommend an increase of salary, they resorted to the report of this commission; and in doing so, they had set out their own reasons for the present augmentation, namely, that those who devoted their whole time to their arduous functions in war, were entitled to pensions on retiring from office. This argument might apply to some poor clerk in the office who had no other means of gaining his sustenance, but could not apply to the two secretaries; for even if the admiralty were burnt to the ground, or their offices annihilated in any other way, the one in verse, and the other in prose, would be able, no doubt, to gain a very handsome livelihood [Hear! and a laugh]. The lords of the admiralty in their representation also stated, that the business of the two offices had not much lessened since the restoration of tranquillity; that circumstance, it was admitted, therefore, was to be considered: and if the expenditure of the department was reduced from 27 to 7 millions, he could not help thinking, that however sleepless the nights of the secretaries might hitherto have been, they would now be able to enjoy a welcome repose. The principal secretary, it appeared, was very unwilling that the increase should be made upon his account; but the lords of the admiralty soon set him right; they told hint that it was not on his account—for, said they, "if we allow this obstinate gentleman to escape from receiving 1,000l. a year, God knows what may happen to us—we, the lords of the admiralty, shall soon be attacked; therefore you, Mr. Secretary, as a good and faithful servant, must not consider your own character, but the advantage of your masters, and you must pocket up the 1,000l. in order that we may retain ours." It was rather singular that an administration making such professions of economy should, the moment they found a man who refused 1,000l. of the public money, compel him to accept it. This refractory secretary seemed to have given them much trouble; for perceiving that he was serious (a fact they could scarcely credit), they ran directly to their neighbours, the lords of the treasury, to require immediate assistance, for a new mutiny had broken out in the navy, and they, or their salaries, were in immediate danger [Continued laughter and cheers]. The lords of the treasury take the alarm. "God bless us," say they, "we shall be the next to suffer—the country will take the alarm, and we shall all be reduced." A council of war upon the public purse was instantly held—an order in council was issued, and the unfortunate secretary, for his rebellious disposition in wishing to save the money of an oppressed nation, was punished—by being compelled to accept the 1,000l. [Hear, hear!]. Did ministers really imagine that the country would be thus imposed upon? Were they aware of the miserable figure they would cut in the public eye by this deplorable contrivance? All men ought to take the alarm at this exposure of a deliberate system—he would not say of extravagance, but—of resistance to every thing that looked like economy, or the diminution of the salaries of persons who had now little or no duties to perform. The whole administration made common cause against the country on the subject of expenditure. All men must admit that the first secretary of the admiralty had with talent and activity discharged his important duties during the war, and well deserved reward; but he might wish to retire, and on what principle was his successor to be allowed so large a salary, which he had done nothing to deserve? No eloquence could heighten the importance of this question. The noble lord and his colleagues were brought to a fair trial before their country. Now was the time when the question was to be decided— "Are you, or are you not, economists?" The noble lord might make speeches, and long speeches; no man could make them oftener or longer; but he could not persuade the people of England out of the exercise of their common sense. Their understandings would not be deceived; and the conduct of ministers on this occasion would be a test of what was to be expected from them in future. He should not be surprised if, in the course of the evening, the secretary to the admiralty should rise and avow his intention never to accept this odious addition. If he did so, he (Mr. T.) hoped that the House would, notwithstanding, come to a vote on the question. In the name of God, let ministers have a fair trial; but let judgment be pronounced.

said, that the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, had, with an acuteness and perspicuity which peculiarly belonged to him, divided the subjects brought before the House, in the clearest manner. He had said a great deal in the first part of his speech on the increase of salaries to the commissioners of excise and customs, but he had admitted that this was not a proper time for discussing the propriety of that measure, but that it would be necessary to defer it till the information called for, had been laid before the House. The question for consideration at present was simply this:—whether or not the salaries of the secretaries of the admiralty had been improperly increased? He was not certain that he should have thought it necessary to trouble the House on this occasion, had it not been for the course which the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. Brougham) had thought it his duty to pursue; but it was impossible for him, as a member of his majesty's government, to hear, without setting his face against it, such language as he had never listened to in that House before [Hear, hear]. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) had set out by denying that ministers had given any proofs of a disposition to practise that economy which had been recommended to parliament. To him he said, the statement of the noble lord was not at all satisfactory—was all a delusion—and the reductions that were to be made were such as must of necessity have been made by any administration. He was not surprised that the paper which his noble friend had read, was not satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman. This, however, though correctly described but as a rough sketch of the plans of ministers, would prove to the House and to the country, that the attention of government was anxiously directed to every quarter where retrenchment could safely be effected, and that their first care after the close of the war was what establishments growing out of the war could be reduced; and it was not till this inquiry was con- cluded, that they ought to consider whether any of those that were in existence before the commencement of the late contest could be put down. That the hon. and learned gentleman also should not be pleased with the conduct of ministers, was not to him a matter of astonishment. He had never had any great affection for those that set on that side of the House; but to night he had completely thrown off the mask; and when guarding himself against being supposed to entertain any personal disrespect for the gentlemen whose increased salaries were now under discussion, the hon. and learned gentleman had declared, that he had no objection to be thought to feel personal disrespect for the noble lord (Castlereagh) and his colleagues. After such a declaration he (Mr. Pole) could expect no candour from that gentleman [Hear, hear!].

spoke to order. He submitted that the conduct of the right hon. gentleman was disorderly in asserting he could expect no candour from the hon. and learned gentleman.

was not aware that he had been out of order. Whenever he heard an hon. gentleman declare that he had no objection to be thought to feel personal disrespect for ministers, he contended he had a right to assume that from such a quarter he could expect no candour [Hear, hear!].

called upon the chair to decide if the right hon. gentleman was not out of order. Whether his hon. and learned friend, while speaking, had been disorderly, he would not now stop to inquire [Marks of disapprobation and cheering], lf he had been disorderly, it was the duty of the House immediately to check him. This could not be done afterwards, if it was not done at the moment. He was ready to submit to the Speaker's judgment, and called upon the right hon. gentleman to say whether it was not disorderly for one member to assert he could expect no candour from another [Hear, hear].

said, in the course of their debates many expressions passed, which were not strictly in order. Called upon to give an opinion, he was bound to say, it was contrary to the rules of that House for one hon. gentleman to assert he could expect no candour from another [Hear, hear!].

resumed. He congratulated the hon. gentleman opposite, on the success of his appeal. He (Mr. W. Pole) was not much in the habit of calling members to order, but was anxious to give them their full swing, which, indeed, they failed not to take, well knowing the patience of himself and his friends near him. He had been called to order because he was coming round to comment on what was disorderly. He gave the gentlemen opposite joy of their successful effort to prevent him from doing this, but he neither envied them their candour nor their victory [Hear, hear!]. The hon. and learned gentleman had not disclaimed a feeling of personal disrespect towards his noble friend and the chancellor of the exchequer. He (Mr. W. Pole) had not the smallest objection to this, and if he should repeat it, he would not call the hon. and learned gentleman to order; and he should not now have touched upon it had no more than this been said. The hon. and learned gentleman had a right to attack the government, but no right to hold language like that which he had used, to make such an attack as—thank God! he had never heard before in that House—and to bring forward insinuations wholly without foundation against the highest authority in this country [Hear, hear!]. The hon. and learned gentleman had thought proper in his speech to use such expressions, as in his life he had never before heard any man utter, who attempted to call himself a friend to the house of Brunswick, and who was anxious to support that establishment which had grown out of our glorious revolution. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated a profligate system to be acted upon at court—he had described the errors of the Stuarts to be comparatively harmless; they were bigots whose delusions were excusable; but now there was no feeling for the distresses of the country—no conscience to suggest relief for the people to be found in the high quarter referred to [Hear, hear!]. This was in substance what the hon. and learned gentleman had said, and this, till now, he had never heard from any friend to the present royal family, or to the British constitution. Whether this was a course proper to be pursued, he should leave to the House to determine.—On the question immediately before the House touching the admiralty, he was surprised to find the hon. and learned gentleman so totally unacquainted with the constitution of that establishment. He had stated the office of the second secretary of the admiralty to be a new one. In this the hon. and learned gentleman was wrong. Sir Philip Stephens was appointed to that office in 1759, and the office had been kept up ever since, though Mr. Barrow had not been placed in it till the time of the late lord Melville. The hon. and learned gentleman had described this office to be a part of the establishment which ought to be discontinued. In this he was wrong. He would tell him it was impossible for the routine of admiralty business to be performed without two secretaries, even though it should be diminished to a third part of what it was at present. It would thus be seen that the hon. and learned gentleman was quite wrong in his facts. Another proof of this was furnished by the comparison on which he had ventured between the amount of the increase which had taken place on the secretary's salary, and the sums paid to the widows and orphans of those who had lost their lives in the service. According to this (he had seen a similar statement in a newspaper that morning), the increase complained of was equal to half of the sum set apart for the relief of those he had mentioned. Let the hon. and learned gentleman look to the estimates which would come under the consideration of the House on Monday, and he would find an addition of 49,000l. was made to them, to enable the admiralty to pay the whole of the widows' pensions now on the list. He felt it his duty to censure the attempt which had been made to bring into contact the remuneration given to civil servants, with the allowances of military or naval officers, and the widows' pensions. If there was a disposition to complain of the provision made for officers wounded in the service, he was ready to meet the gentlemen opposite on that question, and to show that in what had been granted for their relief, this country had always gone further than any other country ever did, and had now gone much further than it ever went before. On such a subject for party purposes, it was not quite fair to hold the language which had that night been heard. He must also complain of what had been said with respect to the abandonment of the malt tax. In giving up this impost, ministers had endeavoured to meet the wishes of the people, but they were not influenced by a mean desire of acquiring popularity with the people, and it was not liberal to endeavour to make them see the measure adopted for their relief in so odious a light. The language which the hon. and learned gentleman had used, went to this, if he had understood him right—that the conduct of ministers in giving up the malt tax ought to encourage the public to demand that all the other taxes should be taken off. If this were really the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman, it was radically wrong, and could not redound to his credit, or tend to promote the welfare of the country.—After hearing sentiments like those which had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman this night, he could neither expect nor desire his support. This mortification, he doubted not, ministers would be spared. Should it at any time prove otherwise, he should immediately suspect the course they were pursuing was in some respect erroneous, and feel not a little alarm at finding they had so dangerous a supporter. He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman who spoke last should have made any complaint against the conduct of the commissioners of naval revision. Their names (Lord Barham, Mr. Fordyce, Admiral Domet, and Mr. Searle) ought alone to have left them above reproach. The reports which they had made, were as able and as judicious as had ever been produced on any subject whatever. All the late improvements in shipbuilding—all the reforms in the subordinate boards, and every advantageous change which had been made in our navy, for several years past, had been suggested by those commissioners. There was no branch of the service to which their exertions had not been successfully extended, and it was a libel on them to say they had only been employed in undoing what had been done by their predecessors, when, instead of labouring to overthrow their plans, many of them were embodied in the reports of this commission, and carried into effect on such recommendation. Under these circumstances, he was surprised that the right hon. gentleman should throw an odium on these commissioners, and speak slightingly of such a set of reports. The right hon. gentleman he admitted to have accurately stated the history of the establishment of the salaries of the two secretaries of the admiralty. On the fees (which formerly paid them in a great measure) being abolished, the salary of the chief secretary was fixed at 3000l. per annum in time of peace, to be increased to 4000l. in time of war; and the salary of the second secretary was fixed at 2000l But the alteration which had taken place, was mentioned, as if it had been determined upon in the first moments of peace. This supposition would be at once refuted, by a reference to the memorial in which it was recommended, which was dated the 25th of March last year, when the nation was arming for a war, which the gentlemen opposite thought likely to last for several years, and when nobody suspected we should immediately return to a state of peace. It was then from the smallness of the salaries of the admiralty clerks, (which could not be diminished in peace without great risk of wanting their services on the recurrence of a period at which they would be demanded) it was judged best to fix them at their present rate, and to bar all future application for a further increase. This arrangement had been fairly described by his noble friend. He was entitled to credit for the statement which he had made, and not to that ridicule with which it had been attempted to cover it. If it should be the opinion of the House that 3000l. rather than 4000l. ought to be the salary of the secretary of the admiralty, it would be for them to determine upon this when the estimates came before the House. Then, should it be their pleasure to make such a reduction, it could be properly effected, and then there would be no complaint on the part of his hon. friend (Mr. Croker), or on that of any of his colleagues. But if this were to be done, he hoped it would be done fairly and openly, and not by a sort of side wind, as it would be if the present motion were carried. Again, adverting to the paper read by his noble friend, he contended, that notwithstanding what had been said against it, it showed on the part of government an absolute determination to make every possible reduction in all the public establishments. These would be more distinctly seen in good time, and he hoped no premature exertion on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite would prevail upon the House to go into any further inquiry on the subject, before the proper time for doing this had arrived.

said, he understood, that a most pointed and personal attack had been made upon him in his absence, by the right hon. gentleman. If he were rightly informed what he had said with respect to the illustrious house of Brunswick, had been greatly misrepresented. He would repeat the words which he understood the right hon. gentleman to have used in his speech, which he sincerely regretted he had not the good fortune to hear. He was informed, the right hon. gentleman had described him to have that night taken off the mask, and to have disclosed principles hostile [No, no!] or unfriendly to the Brunswick family, and the British constitution [Cries of No, no!]. It was no light matter, that language should be held, respecting any member, that might be thus construed.

replied, that what he had said was still in the recollection of the House, and he was certain they would agree in saying, that he had not used any words in the sense which the hon. and learned member had just stated.

said, he was then to understand the right hon. gentleman, that he had not only never made use of such expressions, but that he had never said any thing that imported any charge of the nature described against his principles.

said, he had described the hon. and learned gentleman to have brought forward unfounded insinuations against a certain high quarter (he had not named any individual), and he had put it to the House if such a course was fit to be pursued. With respect to the principles of the hon. and learned gentleman, he had said nothing of their having been hostile to the house of Brunswick, but he had said, that after the principles which the hon. and learned gentleman had developed, that he could not be surprised that he was not satisfied with the statement made by his noble friend, and should be sorry if ministers were favoured with his support. He had also said, that the hon. and learned gentleman had thrown off the mask in his attack upon ministers, when he said he had no objection to be thought to feel disrespect towards them.

rose to speak to the question, and Mr. Brougham rose at the same time to explain. The former was loudly called upon to proceed, and it was some minutes before order was restored.

said, it was of some consequence to him that a further explanation should be offered of his conduct [Cries of "Spoke, spoke!"]. He did not wish to prevent the hon. gentleman from being heard, and was sorry to detain the House for a moment. If he had uttered any thing that could indicate sentiments like those which it had been understood were imputed to him, it was the duty of the House to interfere on the instant, as had always been done on similar occasions. He had only to add he was as sincere a friend to the illustrious family now on the throne, and as sensible of the benefits derived to the nation from its rule as the right hon. gentleman, or any of his colleagues could be, though he showed his feeling in a different way, by desiring to see the royal person now at the head of the government, surrounded by better advisers.

felt persuaded that if his hon. and learned friend had been aware of the import of the observations he had thought proper to make upon the illustrious house of Brunswick, he would have abstained from making them. He had heard with displeasure, and even indignation, some of the expressions made use of by his hon. and learned friend; and he could not help saying that they were entirely out of all the rules and regulations of parliament [Hear, hear!]. With respect to the question before the House, he really did think that the proper time for discussion was subsequent to the estimates being laid before the House; and although his own decided opinion was, that the increase of these salaries in time of peace was an improper act on the part of government, yet he should wait until the whole information was before the House. He bore testimony to the high respectability of the gentlemen composing the committee of revision, as well as to their endeavours to produce economy in every department; but still he must maintain, that at present there was no reason for raising the salaries of the two secretaries of the admiralty, and more particularly when the decrease in the price of almost every article of provision was considered, and when the distressed state of the country under the heavy weight of taxation was reflected upon even for an instant. For these reasons he should certainly, when the question came under discussion, oppose the vote for raising the salaries, not only of the two secretaries in question, but also of every other department, where he should see no manifest reason for such an increase: but as the present moment wag not the time at which it could be fairly discussed, he should vote for passing to the order of the day.

objected to the increased salary of the secretary of the admiralty, at a time when his labour was so considerably diminished. He should not ob- ject to any increase of salary, if it were made in behalf of those persons whose labours still continued the same in peace as in war; and he instanced the astronomer royal and his assistant, the salary of the former not amounting to more than one-fourth of the increase in that of the secretary of the Admiralty, and that of the latter not being one-tenth. If a further investigation were made in these salaries, it would be seen that the librarian of the admiralty had but half the salary of the housekeeper, and that the assistant-housekeeper's salary equalled that of the librarian.

said:—Sir; it was not my intention to take any part in the debate of this night; but I thought it my duty to attend in my place to offer any explanation, that might be demanded. I am sure the House will feel that during part of the debate I could not possibly have been placed in a more painful situation. [Hear, hear!] The pain, however, has been lessened, if not altogether removed, by the terms in which his majesty's ministers have been pleased to speak of my conduct; and by the circumstance of that which they have stated having been received as I could wish, by those whose good opinions I most anxiously desire. One hon. member has treated the subject with taunt and ridicule. I think I may venture to appeal to the feelings of that individual, and call upon him to acknowledge that he has done it injustice, by treating it with so much levity and warmth. I now leave the House, resolved not to vote on the question. For myself, I feel no interest in it at all, and have only to add the expression of my regret, that justice could not be done to the merits of an honourable and humble class of public servants, without my name being brought forward. Mr. Croker then withdrew.

justified the increase given by government to the commissioners of the revenue boards in Scotland. He stated, that in the year 1744 the salary of a commissioner was 500l. a year, the same as that to a judge of the court of session; that their salaries continued, of the same amount, for above 40 years; that a judge's appointment had been most properly increased to 2000l. whilst that of a commissioner had been only 800l., till now increased to 1000l., and that the only objection in his humble opinion to the measure was, that the increase was not adequate to the station in society of the commissioners. He believed it would be found that Mr. Earle, the chairman of the board of customs, had been offered that situation during the administration of lord Grenville, and that, as the one he held in the London board held out prospects not only flattering, but certain to lead to promotion, he took several days to consider of the offer, and certainly was led to accept it under the prospect of an increase of salary. Sir John had much pleasure in bearing testimony to the general opinion in Scotland of the merits of Mr. Earle. He believed government were well aware of his exertions in the improvement of the revenue, and the merchants in Scotland were highly sensible of the facilities given to trade by those arrangements.

in explanation, stated his knowledge of the fact, that Mr. Earle had been taken from the situation, as represented by the hon. baronet, and his merits in the arrangements he had made, and that he had accepted the office in the prospect of an increase of salary, which undoubtedly ought to be realized.

shortly replied; and maintained, that if a system of economy was not immediately set on foot, the country would be involved in the horrors of irretrievable ruin.

The question was loudly called for, and a division then took place on the amendment moved—that the House do proceed to the other orders of the day, when the numbers were