presented a petition from the county Of Wexford, respecting the distressed state of the Butter Trade. The hon. baronet expressed a hope that the House would duly consider this petition, proceeding, as it did, from a most loyal, respectable body, and from a peculiarly peaceable district. He trusted that the cries of distressed Ireland would influence both parliament and his majesty's ministers. Some sign of this influence he was happy to hail in the notice which a right hon. gentleman had given of a motion with regard to the importation of foreign butter. Thus some relief would be afforded to Ireland, which could produce butter enough to supply its own consumption, and the English market also. But the right hon. gentleman's proposition would be ineffectual, if it did not go the length of affording the butter trade the same protection which was at present enjoyed by the corn growers, namely, by prohibiting the import of any foreign butter, unless when butter rose to a certain price.

assured the hon. baronet that he felt a due solicitude for the interest of Ireland, and that it was principally by a consideration for that country he was disposed to give the notice alluded to. But he hoped that he should not be deemed disrespectful to the hon. baronet's constituents, if he declined on the present occasion to state the precise bearing of the measure which he proposed to bring forward. He should, however, fully explain his proposition on Friday, to which day he meant, for the convenience of some gentlemen, to postpone the motion of which he had given notice for this evening.

expressed a hope, that the right hon. gentleman would not, in his consideration of the butter trade, lose sight of the subject of cheese.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

said, that the motion he was about to make turned on the construction of an act of parliament, which had been in some cases construed contrary to its obvious intention. The act was passed on the 6th of Anne, and enacted, that if any member accepted of an office of emolument in the army or navy departments, he should vacate his seat. The House he considered to have no discretion to exercise on such a subject, if the case he was about to mention came within the limits of the statute. He would maintain that the office of treasurer of Greenwich hospital, came within the statute, notwithstanding any precedent that might be pleaded. Whenever an officer, naval or military, received an appointment which was not strictly a professional commission, a new writ was issued. So it was in the cases of admiral Aylmer and another, on being appointed masters of Greenwich hospital, when the new writs were issued. It stood so until 1732, when a question arose on the appointment of general Wade to the governorship of forts in Scotland. A construction was then put on the act, that military men, being made governors of forts and garrisons, were excepted. In the present case, he was desirous of saying, that he meant no disrespect to the gallant officer sir Thomas Thompson, who had been appointed treasurer of Greenwich hospital. No officer could be more proper than one who had so distinguished himself, and fought and bled in his country's service. He avowed the highest respect for him. The governor of Greenwich hospital, it was true, was excepted; but the office of treasurer stood on different grounds. By the charter the governorship was in the appointment of the Crown, and the admiralty could appoint all but the governor, treasurer, &c. But in 1809, the Crown made some new regulations, excepting the surveyor and comptroller. The office of treasurer might now be held without the holder having a knowledge of naval affairs. In the case of captain Baker, in 1736, a new writ was moved for the borough of Hythe, on his accepting the office of treasurer of Greenwich hospital. This precedent he thought so decisive, that he could not see how it could be contested. He had understood that some reliance was placed on the case of sir Charles Saunders, who, however, appeared to have been appointed on the 11th of April 1754 to this office, but parliament had been dissolved on the 8th of April; therefore the question could not arise upon the vacation of his seat. The issuing of the warrant for the appointment appeared a sufficient authority for the new writ, as soon as it was published. No argument could be deduced from the instance of sir Charles Saunders. Indeed there were frequently transactions which escaped public notice in the House, and from that silence no inference could be drawn. He could even cite instances of seven months' delay after the death of a member before a new writ was issued. There must be time for verifying a member's decease. Ths House, in the present case, had a duty of some importance to execute. If the principle he applied to the treasurership of Greenwich hospital was contested, he would ask why the treasurer and the comptroller of the navy were bound to vacate their seats on being appointed? Why did sir Charles Wager vacate his seat, though a naval officer, on being made comptroller of the navy? Why did a naval officer, on going to the board of admiralty itself, which directed naval operations, vacate his seat? There were stronger reasons why a naval officer, on being appointed a commissioner of admiralty, should not vacate his seat, than there were for the treasurer of Greenwich hospital. It was decided in 1712 and 1717 that the master and lieutenant-general of the ordnance did not vacate their seats, but that the surveyor-general did. Now the surveyor-general of the Ordnance was certainly a person more of a military officer than the treasurer of Greenwich hospital was of a naval officer. He certainly considered the decision of the House of Commons in the case of captain Baker as completely decisive, and beyond the power of any argument which he could anticipate, to overthrow. He should therefore move, "That the speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown, to make out a new writ for a citizen to serve in this present parliament for the city of Rochester, in the room of sir Thomas Boulden Thompson, bart. he having, since his election, accepted the office of treasurer of Greenwich hospital.

thought his hon. friend acted right in calling the attention of the House to the subject. As doubts were entertained, he should have no objection to sending the question to a committee; but he thought his hon. friend had not quite fairly taken his view of the power of parliament to construe an act affecting its own members. He had endeavoured to show that the House had put a construction on the act not strictly according to its wording, and, that thereby there had been a departure from the meaning of the statute of the 6th of queen Anne. A difference had occurred as to the interpretation of the act, and a proper relaxation had been made in favour of professional officers receiving certain appointments, which might indeed be regarded as steps in their promotion. The question was, whether the treasurership of Greenwich hospital, which had no naval command, might not be accepted by a naval officer without his vacating his seat. As sir Charles Saunders's case appeared to have attracted no particular attention at the time, he should leave it out of consideration. There was no particular parliamentary distinction between the offices of master and of treasurer. The duties of both offices were nearly of a similar description; but the later regulations rendered it necessary that they should be professional naval officers. From those limitations the Crown had no right to depart; consequently, the appointment of an unprofessional person could not be considered valid. If the strict meaning of the act had been departed from, it might be contended that a naval officer might sit without vacating. It appeared clear that treasurers of the hospital had sat in the House. There was no question that sir T. B. Thompson was perfectly capable of being re-elected; therefore no great point was obtained by pressing this proposition. For the last sixty years, the precedents were uniform as to the master, who was not more of a civil officer than the treasurer. He should be glad to see the matter referred to a committee.

contended, that if the system was once adopted, of allowing persons to retain their seats in parliament who had accepted offices from the Crown, it would be impossible to say where the practice would stop. He could see no analogy between the office of treasurer and governor; but even if there were, it was enough that the House had recorded its opinion with respect to the former. He trusted most sincerely, that parliament would not sanction any further relaxation of the statute of queen Anne.

maintained, that the offices of treasurer and master were precisely similar, and that as the latter was allowed to sit, it could, be no violation of the act to permit the former to do the same. The House should bear in mind what were the dates of the different decisions of parliament. In 1720 it was deter- mined that the master of Greenwich hospital should not sit in parliament without vacating his seat; in 1736 the same determination was made with respect to the treasurer; but in 1746 it was determined that the master might retain his seat, and as, since that period, no question had ever been raised with respect to the treasurer, it was fair to construe the decision of parliament in his favour likewise. The analogy was certainly as strong on one side as the other,

observed, that what the right hon. gentleman called the decision of parliament in the case of the treasurer, was nothing more than the practice of parliament; which was a very different thing. If no question had ever been raised with respect to the treasurer sitting in that House, he should like to know how any decision could ever have been had. The only decision, in fact, that was upon record in the case of the treasurer of Greenwich hospital was one, which declared he could not retain his seat in that House, without a new election. Upon the whole, he thought it would be much better and more consistent with the dignity of that House, to refer the question to a committee, for he deprecated any thing like precipitation in a question of this kind. Parliament ought to pronounce its opinion only after mature deliberation.

observed, that when he spoke of a decision, he intended to imply a practice of the House; when the right hon. gentleman mentioned a decision, he must speak of a case agitated in the House.

replied, that when a question had been proposed to the House, it depended on the decision; but it was obvious that no decision could be made till the particular case came before them.

said, he certainly should not press the motion in its present form, as it appeared to be the opinion of the House that it would be better to refer the matter to a select committee. The hon. member then withdrew the original motion, and substituted the following: "That a committee be appointed to inquire into precedents of cases of naval and military officers accepting offices of profit from the Crown, and continuing to sit as members of this House."

The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.

begged leave to state a fact. or two to the House before going into the committee. He considered it of some importance to put the House in possession of these facts, that the committee might be better prepared for the discussion. He could not help alluding to a triumph which an hon. gentleman on the opposite side exulted in having acquired over an hon. friend of his, respecting the two frigates said to be now breaking up for firewood. His hon. friend had stated that these frigates were built in the king's yards, and gentlemen on the opposite side maintained they were built in a merchants' yard. This mistake of his hon. friend had been exulted in, as affording a great deal of triumph to them, anxious as they naturally were at the present moment of grasping at every unlucky slip. But while these gentlemen were so disposed to glory, he would tell them it was a matter of no moment where these vessels had been built, but it was a proof of the grossest negligence on the part of the admiralty, who did not see that they were properly built. Really it was a very fine argument to tell the House and the country, that because so much public money had been foolishly laid out, no blame attached to the admiralty, seeing these ships were not built in the king's yards. It was truly a very fine apology for their extravagance. He would further tell the House, that from the documents now on the table, he found the vessels had been built in merchants yards, but with timber furnished expressly for that purpose by government. He wished to know, whether government knew that the dry rot was at that time in that very wood which they thus made use of? He also wished to know, whether they were not at this moment building some from the same lot of wood? [No, from the ministerial benches]. He was glad to hear this was not the case. Government betrayed in a striking light the weakness of their cause, by urging as an apology for the loss of public money, that the vessels were built in merchants yards. He trusted they would hereafter remember, that the feelings of the country were not to be insulted, or its money expended in so improper a manner.

said, he only undertook to show, in answer to the hon. gentleman, that the ships were not built in the king's yards. It was an incidental point which had arisen in the debate, and the hon. gentleman would have found it explained if he had looked in the estimates. As to any triumph arising from the hon. gentleman having been set right, he believed nobody but the gentlemen on the opposite side considered it so. Respecting the timber, he could say nothing about it, as he was not in the admiralty at the time.

replied, that the right hon. gentleman must nevertheless have seen by the estimates, that the timber was furnished from the king's yards.

was entirely of the same opinion, with the noble lord. It was extremely improper to see the public money so thoughtlessly lavished. What was the surveyor of the navy? For what purpose was he appointed, if he did not look in a careful manner to the way in which vessels were built. It was a very fine proof of the attention of the admiralty to the interests of the country, and would no doubt give a high opinion of them to the public, when it was known that they built vessels one year which were rotten the next. No merchant in the kingdom would ever think of building his vessels in such a miserably defective state, and it was derogatory to the honour of government to say that they were less attentive to what they built for the national safety.

, in explanation, begged leave to state, that when the Baltic trade was shut up, and a general embargo pervaded the continent, government not knowing how soon the Russian ports might be opened, had purchased a quantity of fir timber from America, and as the enemy had been very much employed in building vessels in the Scheldt, ministers thought it their duty to build as many temporary frigates as they possibly could, out of this American fir, because they knew it would not keep very long in the yards. It was well known that fir vessels, although apparently in good condition, went often to wreck in a singular manner. He nevertheless could assure the House that several of the vessels built of that wood were yet in good repair. From the papers to be laid before the House in a few days, respecting these two frigates, the truth of what he had now stated would be seen.

The House having resolved itself into the committee, and the navy estimates being referred to the said committee,

observed, that as the gentlemen opposite had declared, that oh the subject of the charges for the civil department of the navy, they were not inclined to oppose any thing which they might deem necessary for the public service, they ought not to assume that the amount of these charges must necessarily fall short in the first year of peace from what they were in the last year of war. He trusted that every charge in these estimates, and every item, could be explained to the satisfaction of the House. He had stated on a former evening, that great reductions were in contemplation in the foreign yards, as a necessary consequence of peace. He did not apprehend that a reduction could be made immediately in the victualling department, for in some instances an increase would be necessary, to bring up and settle the arrears of the war. Respecting the allowance for the widow's charity, the sum of 46,000l. was proposed to be voted, as a great reduction had been made in the fund by the reduction of the number of seamen from 140,000 to 33,000, which deprived it of the produce received from their wages, as well as from that of the number of fictitious men, which were taken in the proportion of one out of every hundred. The expenditure of the fund was 86,000l. and it was necessary to apply to parliament for 40,000l. to make up the deficiency thus occasioned. The hon. baronet then justified the sums for the building and repairing of ships, and observed that the system of building and repairing in the king's yards, necessarily brought along with it a great increase of the public works. He stated several reductions that had already been made in different yards, amongst which was a saving at Chatham of 30,000l.; and concluded with moving the first resolution, viz. "That 1,513,140l. 10 s 9 d. be granted to defray the salaries and contingent expenses of the admiralty, navy, navy pay and victualling offices; the officers of the out-ports and foreign yards; the wages, and victuals to officers, and shipkeepers of vessels in ordinary; the expense of harbour mooring and rigging; the repairs of buildings, and bounty to chaplains."

objected very much to the plan of taking these estimates in one whole, as it prevented a fair discussion on each. As eighteen articles were thus summed up by the hon. baronet in one resolution, he suggested the propriety of dividing the resolution, and taking each separately.

objected to the plan adopted by the hon. baronet, as rather tending to obscure than elucidate the views of government. He wished to know why further reductions than those proposed by ministers, might not be effected? For example, in the department of widows' pensions, why should the duties of surveyor and paymaster not be discharged by one man, and why should the six commissioners, each having 1,000l. per annum, not be reduced to four? In the proposed change of the place for building vessels he agreed, but thought it unreasonable in ministers to make that an apology for extravagant expenditure. He thought a very great reduction might also be made in the foreign building yards. He was glad to hear one of the yards at Gibraltar or Malta (he could not say which) had been given up, and he also thought one yard was sufficient for all India. From having resided there five years, he was prepared to say so with confidence. He was happy to hear ministers express their determination to be economical. He gave them credit for their good intentions, and would like very well to see them once realized. At the same time, he would appeal to the good sense of the House, whether that deserved the name of economy, which gave an undue preference to one class of his Majesty's subjects over another. He would illustrate this by a fact, which he knew from experience. When a colonel in the army died, however rich his widow might be, she still received the pension from government, but if a captain of a vessel left his widow an income of double the pension allowed by government, she did not receive the pension. This was a case which some might call economy, but he would call it injustice. It was, besides, worthy of remark, that officers in the army paid not one farthing to aid this fund for their widows, whereas sea captains and officers did pay, and it was a very hard case for their widows not to get back their own property. The lords of the admiralty, he had no doubt, were able to explain this in a proper manner, and he felt it his duty, in justice to his own feelings, and the feelings of those gallant men who had so often bled and conquered for England, that it should be explained. He was far from wishing economy not to be adopted, but he considered that such inequality should be noticed. He believed since Monday last his majesty's ministers had formed some further plans of reduction, which he trusted to see executed, and on that account he would not decidedly oppose the estimates. At the same time, aware of undue preference being given to the army, which he illustrated in a variety of instances respecting the half pay given to each, he anxiously entreated his majesty's ministers to consider what was due to those gallant men whose exertions had never been wanting to their country, who had spent an arduous life in its service, and after bearing innumerable burthens and bequeathing glorious laurels to it, were allowed to return in what, to say the least, he thought a rather neglected state.

was most anxious that the committee should pursue the course that was adopted with the army estimates, fey voting each head of service by itself: otherwise it would be difficult to understand their necessity. He could foresee no solid objection to this mode on the other side of the House, and nothing would lead more to the economy of which they professed themselves desirous, than to enable the House to understand each particular sum they were ealled on to vole. He therefore hoped there would be no objection to put the resolutions in the way suggested.

wished the sum to be voted for the ordinary estimates altogether, as they related almost entirely to the civil departments. He trusted this first head, voted together, would answer the right hon. gentleman's purpose.

replied, that there were eighteen divisions under the head of part the first, and he should propose that each of these be voted separately. Then, if gentlemen thought, that where 30,000l. was proposed, 25,000l. was sufficient, they could express their opinions, and leave the necessity of the larger sum to be explained.

thought there was a little distinction between the proposition before the House, and the rest that were to follow. He felt that there might be considerable inconvenience in departing from the ordinary mode as far as had been done in the case of the army. If the House had pursued that course with respect to the army, he did not feel that it was a precedent for the navy. It appeared to him that there could be no better course than to take the branches of service as they were numbered. If, however, the House thought otherwise, he would, suggest to take the 61,000l. first, and proceed with the other heads as they stood.

was happy the noble lord had conceded the point. He did not see how any pledge could be given; but if this mode should be found, as he believed it would, convenient, instead of inconvenient, the House would certainly pursue it on future occasions.

On the first resolution being put, viz. "That it is the opinion of this committee. that a sum not exceeding 59,723l. 16 s. 7d . be granted to his majesty for defraying the salaries and contingent expenses of the admiralty office for the year 1816."

adverted to the charge brought against him by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Croker) of having committed a great mistake on a recent occasion, in asserting that on a comparison for a long period of the expenses of the civil departments of the navy during the last year of a war and the first year of the succeeding peace, a diminution had invariably been found in the latter. The hon. gentleman had declared, that if he (Mr. Tierney) had used reasonable diligence in his inquiries, he would have found that the ordinaries of the navy had in no case been diminished, but had frequently been increased in the first year of a peace. True. But what he maintained was, that in the particular offices which he had specified, there had invariably been a diminution of expense in the first year of peace, as compared with the expense of the last year of war. A reference to the journals of the House, which he had since made, proved this in the clearest manner. At the peace of Utrecht the whole ordinaries of the navy had increased, but the expenses of the offices to which he had alluded had diminished. It appeared that in 1762, the last year of war, the expense of the admiralty and navy offices had been 36,093l., the expenses of the dock-yards 16,852l., and the expenses of the out-ports 5,370l.; and that in 1763, the first year of peace, the expense of the admiralty and navy offices had been 36,093l., the expense of the dock-yards 16,560l., and the expense of the out-ports 4,920l.;—diminutions certainly not worth talking about, except to show the accuracy of the general statement which he had made. Let the same comparison be made between the years 1748 and 1749—the former the last year of a war, the latter the first year of a peace. In 1748, the expence of the admiralty and navy offices was 37,913l.; in 1749, 34,820l.; being a decrease of above 3,000l. And yet the hon. gentleman had maintained with great gravity, that he (Mr. Tierney) must be the most ignorant of human beings if he did not know that there had always been an increase rather than a decrease; the hon. gentleman founding on his notable discovery that there had been an increase in the ordinaries, the declaration that he (Mr. Tierney) had committed a gross mistake in asserting that there had been no increase in the particular offices which he had described.—Having said so much to clear himself from the imputation attempted to be cast upon him by the hon. gentleman, he would proceed to make some observations on the question immediately before the committee. By an order in council, dated the 30th of January, 1816, and which, by accident, he had not seen until that morning, a great change had been made in the establishment of the clerks of the admiralty. Why had this been done without the opinion of parliament? Why had not the hon. gentleman waited for a couple of months, to know in what way parliament would dispose of many public questions bearing on the subject, and particularly with the property tax? It was an invidious task to make observations on a subject, in which so many laborious and respectable individuals were interested. A more meritorious set of persons than the clerks in those offices, he believed, had never existed. During the short time that he was in office, he had an opportunity at Somerset-house, of observing the conduct of the clerks in the department to which he had the honour to belong, and he must say, that no men could be more deserving. But he must condemn in the first place, the system of making alterations of the kind, which had been made without consulting parliament upon them; and in the second place, he must object to the nature of the alteration, that had been made. What had been done? In the year 1814, the number of clerks in the admiralty-office, navy-office, navy pay-office, and victualling-office, was 449. At present the number was 425. Thus there was a diminution of 24 clerks. But how stood the salaries? In 1814, the amount of the salaries for the clerks belonging to those offices, was 90,840l.—at present it was 101,000l; being an increase of 10,000l.

Under the new regulations, therefore, it appeared, that while the number of clerks had been diminished, the expense had been augmented. If the hon. gentleman had abstained from his plan—if he had let things alone—all parties would have been better satisfied: twenty four gentlemen would not have been turned adrift, and 10,000l a year would have been saved to the public. Nor was this sum of 10,000l. the only additional public expense which the new arrangements had occasioned. To get rid of these clerks, the superannuated list had been increased. Since the year 1814, the increased expense of superannuation in the admiralty had been 3892l.—in the navy-office 1013l.; making together near 5000l. Thus a further outgoing of 15,000l. had been created, simply because the hon. gentleman had thought the present a proper moment to new mould and recast his office. He would not say that the modifications were reprehensible; what he contended was, that parliament ought first to have been consulted on the subject. A committee above stairs ought to have been appointed to investigate it, as had been done in former cases. Let a comparison be instituted between the labour performed at the present moment in the admiralty and the number of clerks employed to perform it, with the labour performed there and the number of clerks employed to perform it in 1800. The year 1800 was one of the most active of the war; and yet at that period there were employed at the admiralty only 16 clerks, while now the number employed was 28—the number to which the establishment had been reduced from 35. It was to him utterly incomprehensible why, in profound peace, 28 persons should be employed in an office the duties of which were satisfactorily discharged by 16 persons in a time of most active warfare. To answer this, something more would be necessary than a speech from the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman might perhaps get up and attempt by argument to show two and two made five. If so, he had rather not hear him. He had been brought up in the conviction that two and two made four; and he confessed that he was so much attached to old prejudices, that he did not wish that conviction to be proved erroneous [A laugh].—And now with respect to the individuals who had been discharged from the admiralty-office: they were seven in number—all put on the superannuation list. One of these individuals was 55 years of age, and he readily admitted, that at that period of his life a public servant was entitled to a proper provision. But the other six were all in the prime of life. The eldest was 44— he hoped that was to be considered the prime of life, for if not, he (Mr. Tierney) was in his dotage [A laugh],—But there was one who had been appointed at the age of 15—that was eight years ago—so that at 23 this individual was superannuated! There was another gentleman— he believed of the name of Fisher—as discerning, as active, and as intelligent a man as ever lived. Did he ask for superannuation? No. But the hon. gentleman was determined to make new arrangements in the office, and to that determination all other considerations must yield. If the House would bear this, they would bear any thing. It was not liberality—it was wantonness, it was profusion, it was extravagance. Let it also be recollected, that by the decision of the House on the property tax, 10,000l. a year had been added to that expense, or, which was the same thing, the 10,000l. that would have been deducted from the 101,000l. paid, would not now be withheld. By the new order too he believed (though he might be in error on this point) that as soon as the clerks were put on the establishment, their salaries were to increase 10l. a year without limitation. All this ought to have been brought under the consideration of parliament. With a view that it should be so brought, he would move that only six months expenditure should be voted, in order that the House might, in the mean while, appoint a committee to sift these matters to the bottom. The right hon. gentleman concluded accordingly by moving, instead of the original resolution, "that the sum of 29,861l. 18s. 3½d. be granted to his Majesty, for the expenses of the offices in question, up to the 24th of June 1816".

, far from feeling dissatisfaction at the course taken by the right hon. gentleman, was grateful to him for the opportunity he had afforded him of replying to the statements he had made, and further, he was assured it would be in his power to convince the right hon. gentleman, that he was as much mistaken on this, as he had been on a former evening. The right hon. gentleman had commenced his speech by describing him (Mr. Croker) to have deceived the House by re- presenting the first year of peace to have commonly given an excess on the Ordinary estimates of the last year of war.—Yet the right hon. gentleman himself had proved the truth of that assertion, and admitted what indeed he could not deny, that the sums which he (Mr. Croker) had quoted from the records of office and of parliament, were correctly quoted. The House would do him the justice to recollect, that these he had stated to be the gross sums on the estimates, and had in no instance given them a character which did not belong to them. He had even stated, that various items, such as half-pay and allowances to officers were included in them, which might not, in the first instance, have been known to be so, and by the exclusion of which he might perhaps have made his argument stronger. The House would further do him the justice to remember his statement was this, that unless some minute errors had crept into the estimates referred to, which went a hundred years back it would be found, that even on those heads to which the right hon. gentleman had particularly alluded, there had uniformly appeared no reduction in the first year of peace, below the ordinary estimates of the last year of war.

interrupted the hon. member for the purpose of observing, that he had had no means of referring to the estimates he had mentioned, but by looking into the journals of the House. These gave him the gross sums voted. The estimates of 1781, 1782, and 1783, he had not pretended that he had looked at with a view to the present discussion.

was only sorry the right hon. gentleman's memory had not served him so well on this occasion as it ought to have done. He would now go further, and say, there was on the present occasion a diminution of expense on the two heads to which the right hon. gentleman had particularly directed his attention, and this he was confident could not be found in the estimates of the first year after any former war. An equality in the expense was the worst case that could in any instance be proved against him. The right hon. gentleman had not referred to the estimates of 1801 and 1802.

said, he had not had the means of referring to them.

said, the right hon. gentle man had not, on this occasion, referred to the estimates of 1801 and 1802. He had not made himself acquainted with the details of the naval service in that year of economy, which was now so highly praised, though the estimates were framed by that administration with which he had hastened to ally himself. On those items, which the right hon. gentleman had so particularly brought forward, it would be seen the charge in 1801 was 150,000l. and that it was augmented in the following year to 210,000l. It ought to be stated, that three items were included in this charge, and to guard against misapprehension he would state them in detail. There appeared on the estimates for 1801 —

On the estimates of 1802 the charges were—

It would be seen from this statement, that there had been in 1802 an increase above the ordinary estimate of war, of 60,000l.; whereas in the present year, there was a reduction of from 4to 3000l. on those heads of expenditure as compared with the charges thence arising in the last year. He owed the right hon. gentleman his sincere thanks for giving him an opportunity of affording the House this explanation. That which he had submitted to them, it would be observed, was simply a dry statement of facts, and it was for the right hon. gentleman opposite to prove their inaccuracy if he could. When he brought forward the increase of 1802 on certain items, did the right hon. gentleman suspect that he meant to accuse that administration of wanton extravagance? This was by no means his intention. He was not ignorant of the causes of that additional charge, which he had shown to have been created; and he knew that in the then situation of things, it was not an improper charge. The increased expense was necessary to that system, on which the government of this country then began to act, and was demanded by the circumstances of the times. Without throwing censure on the conduct of the ministers of that day, he contended, that the statement he had made was sufficient to overthrow the primâ faciecase which the right hon. gentleman opposite thought he had made out, and to prove that the House ought to go into a committee on the items in question.

He now came to a part of the subject, on which he begged to be indulged with the particular attention of the House, and not only their attention, but their kind consideration in favour of a body of men far removed from political life, and as he hoped far beyond the reach of political hostility. He hoped the case would be decided solely on its own merits. Before he went further, he thought it right to observe that the act of parliament which had passed in 1810 did not go to prevent his majesty from altering the salaries of any of his servants in the public offices, by an order in council. It had not such an effect, nor did it go to give the Crown an unlimited power in this respect. Its object was but to confirm the rights previously vested in the sovereign; to clear up what was doubtful under former acts, and to preserve those powers which had previously been constitutionally held. It had not been framed so as at all to interfere with the regulations made by earl Spencer in 1800, for superannuating public officers after certain periods of service. He had brought in the bill, and before doing so had had the honour of offering these explanations to the House. The right hon. gentleman would see he had been mistaken as to the object of that act, and perceive it had only been brought in to confirm those rights which the Crown had enjoyed before. He trusted that what he had now said would be viewed as a sufficient answer to the charge which had been insinuated against him, of his having brought on this bill for some concealed object, and of having endeavoured to huddle up his own case with the cases of others. On the subject of the increase of the clerks salaries, the right hon. gentleman had really paid him a compliment which he did not deserve, in representing that alteration to have been his act alone. It was certainly his duty, as secretary to the admiralty, to hold the pen which recorded the decision come to, and to attend the proceedings which had taken place before the alteration was resolved upon. But though this, in the routine of duty, was what he was necessarily called upon to do, the right hon. gentleman must necessarily know, that the increase which had taken place could not have been made by him without the concurrence first of the board of admiralty and eventually of his majesty's government.

He would now proceed to show how, in point of fact, this measure had been forced on ministers. About the year 1811, the state of the clerks in the naval departments became so very miserable, that several memorials were received at the admiralty, setting forth the extreme distress to which they were reduced, and praying for an increase of salary. At that period the government, engaged in a most expensive war, was unwilling to listen to any representations of this nature, or to grant any augmentation of income to any of the officers in the public departments. In 1812, an hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, who was certainly not very prodigal of the public money, had submitted a motion to the House, the object of which was to obtain for the navy office clerks an increase of salary. It was then his (Mr. Croker's) duty to object to that proposition, but a promise was given that the subject should be attended to when peace was restored, or a more favourable opportunity for looking into it arrived. The inquiries, it would hence be seen, had not been conducted with too great haste, nor the result too hastily determined. It was not a business that had been got up the day before parliament met, as had been insinuated. He should have the honour of explaining how it had been done, and he did not hesitate to assert, that no question had ever been more attentively considered, nor had any measure been more gradually proceeded with, with a view that it might finally be satisfactorily completed. So far had the board of admiralty been from hurrying this business, that the hon. baronet already mentioned, in consequence of the delay, brought forward another motion in 1813, similar to that which he had made in the preceding year. On this occasion he had been told that inquiries were then making, and that the result of these would be laid before the House in due time. The most minute inquiries had indeed been made, not only into the general state of the establishment, but the cure of every individual in the offices, name by name, and man by man, had been examined. In consequence of these proceedings, it was clearly ascertained, that the salaries of many of the clerkships were so small, that, he had no hesitation in stating the fact, they hardly enabled their wretched pos- sessors to live. The case of the lower classes of them was particularly deplorable, and their misery so extreme, that it was not possible to refuse to do something for them. On this point, if he thought it necessary, he could offer some affecting statements which would touch the feelings of the House. This, however, he would not do, but should content himself with stating generally their distress to have been extreme.

If it would not fatigue the House he would now state the principle on which the change which had at length been resolved upon, had finally been made. [Hear, hear!]. Three plans had been under consideration. One proposed to give the clerk a salary apportioned to the duty to be performed, which he should receive from the day he first entered the office to the day of his death, without advance or variation. The second plan, (and this had been acted upon in some instances) was, to make no increase or allowance but in proportion to the length of time the individual might have been in the service. To fix the minimum and the maximum of his remuneration, and only to make the latter attainable by many years of service. This, however, he apprehended would be thought a very bad arrangement, as it went to take from the clerk all desire to distinguish himself by ability and zeal, from the consciousness that no merit could advance, no neglect retard him in his progress. A third plan, which was a union of parts of the two former, namely, the establishing several rates of salary proportionable to the responsibility of the duty to be performed; but which rates should afterwards be gradually increased according to the length and value of the service of the officer— this plan, while it excluded the errors of both the former propositions, united all their advantages, and he would venture to say, that no other system could be at once so fair to the individual and the public.

Having stated the principles on which the board proceeded, he had now to show in what way their plan had been carried into effect. In limiting the rewards to be given, they had been guided by the salaries heretofore paid to the senior clerks. Beyond the highest of these it was resolved the remuneration should not extend. The arrangement made went rather to reduce the highest salaries; it did not much augment the intermediate, ones between the highest and the lowest; but it operated in favour of the inferior classes, whose means had been so small that they were literally starving. This, it was thought, would be a fairer distribution of the money paid by the public to remunerate this portion of their servants, and this, he was satisfied, the House would not hold to be extravagant. The minimum of the clerk's income was fixed at 100l. per annum with a yearly increase of 10l. In 61 or 62 years, not of life but in service, the extreme benefits of the whole might be attained. The individual would then receive 800l. per annum, the highest salary heretofore paid, and more than this he could not be entitled to by any length of service: a person of talents might attain promotion from one office to another, but still his increase, by length of service, would be only at the rate of 10l. a year. In consequence of this arrangement having been adopted at the admiralty, the House would see, that in the vote to be submitted to them, the chief clerk's salaries would suffer some diminution, and the benefit of it would be felt by the poorer classes. These had their salaries at once fixed at 100l. per annum, but when it was considered that at an increase of 10l. a year, twenty years of service were necessary to give them an annual income of 300l., it would not be thought they were extravagantly provided for. The senior clerks were so far injured by this change, that he was satisfied nothing but a sense of duty, which made them content to sacrifice some individual advantages for the benefit of their fellow clerks, could have induced them to submit to it without making some remonstrance. The clerk of the admiralty, for instance, who in two years would have been entitled to 750l. per annum on the old plan, would now at the end of that period, receive but 700l. Thus also the five senior clerks in the navy-office, on the old plan, had received 3,400l.; their salaries on the new plan amounted to but 3,200l. and each of these would now have to serve five years longer to obtain the highest salary he could aspire to than was necessary under the old system. Others, whose salaries had amounted together to 5,300l. now received but 4,500l.; so that they would have ten years to serve to gain the salary they were entitled to before. The salaries paid to the lower classes had formerly amounted to 20,500l. They now created a charge of 26,000l. giving an increase on the sum paid to them of 5,500l. This sum, divided amongst 112 persons, gave an average of 49l. per man. In the victualling offices, an arrangement on the same principle had been made. The right hon. gentleman was mistaken in thinking the number of clerks on the establishment of the admiralty, had been raised from sixteen or seventeen to twenty-eight. In 1800 there were but sixteen clerks on the establishment; but it had been common occasionally to employ ten, fifteen, or sixteen temporary clerks to assist them, according to the pressure of the business before them. In the present instance there had not been any addition made to the number of clerks on the establishment, as supposed by the right hon. gentleman. He (Mr. Croker) conceived the right hon. gentleman had been led into this error, by observing that some of the clerks on the establishment were described as "extra clerks." This title of extra clerks had existed when he first knew the office, and indeed for more than half a century. Why the junior clerks were so called he knew not; but they were not less on the establishment than those who were not thus indicated; and were not, as he assumed the right hon. gentleman to have supposed, merely temporary clerks. He acquitted the right hon. gentleman of any wish to prefer an unfounded charge, and doubted not what he had said on this subject had risen from a mistake. The fact was, he (Mr. Croker) had not added one single clerk to the establishment.

He now came to the arrangement made with respect to the clerk's salaries in peace and war. When the admiralty had determined to abolish the distinctions heretofore made, they had judiciously determined upon reducing the number of clerks. This was to him at all times, a painful task, but it became a duty when it was found the whole of the number necessary in war were not wanted in peace. It had been thought better in consonance with the opinion of the board of revision, to reduce the number of persons employed, than to make any reduction in the salaries of those who were to be retained. By this determination, the expense to the public was made the same as if no change in the establishment had taken place. Not fewer than twelve clerks had been reduced since the year 1814 in the admiralty alone. These reductions had commenced from the first moment there was a prospect of the restoration of peace. He further begged the House to observe, that so far from the plan adopted by the admiralty having for its object the extension of patronage, it went directly to cut it up by the roots. Had there existed a wish to extend the patronage of the admiralty, the old salaries would have been continued, and the former number of clerks been kept up. This had not been done, and he would appeal to those in that House who knew most intimately the arrangements which had been made, if any new appointments had taken place within the last two or three years. The insinuation of the right hon. gentleman, that he himself had exercised any patronage with respect to the admiralty clerks, he would meet by denying the fact, and by stating to him, that he had been so careful in this respect, that when a vacancy occurred some two or three years ago, by the death of a clerk, whose salary was 450l. per annum, he, foreseeing the public might not want the service of any one in his place, had never recommended it to the board to appoint a successor. The right hon. gentleman had spoken of the decrease of labour at the admiralty. The duties to be performed were less interesting and curious, he admitted, than at particular periods, when the nation was engaged in war; but he could assure the right hon. gentleman, that both the secretaries and all the clerks had been more constantly and incessantly occupied for the last four months than at any period since he had known the office. For this a thousand reasons might be given, but one should suffice. In the year when he first came to the office, the number of the out pensioners of Greenwich was 3,300. They were now increased to 33,000, and every individual of these cost the admiralty two or three letters. All their claims to pay or prize money were to be inspected and inquired into, and this caused a proportionate increase of business at the navy office, and the navy pay office. Every one was obliged to "take out his time," as it was called. For this purpose, every ship's books were searched, and the time for which each man was to be paid, not only computed by months and weeks but even to days. Each man was then to be furnished with a certificate from the navy office, stating the whole of the particulars. To say nothing of the various and complicated accounts which were to be brought up, the business to which he had just alluded, was sufficient to prevent that extensive reduction from being made, which some gentlemen conceived to be practicable immediately on the return of peace, but which he took upon himself to say was impossible. A time would certainly arrive, should it please God to continue the peace, when this vast pressure of business would no longer be felt. There would be no more Greenwich pensioners added to the list;—no more ships' books coming home to be examined, no more pursers' accounts to be inspected, and when these should cease to flow in upon the admiralty and the navy office, as they did at present, it would be the duty of ministers to submit estimates lower in these minute particulars to the consideration of parliament. This could not be done at present, but he entreated the House to believe that nothing had been done which justice, necessity, and even economy had not concurred to recommend. Far from endeavouring unduly to extend the patronage of the admiralty, every step which had been taken tended to repress the exercise of it. In this spirit instructions had been sent to the heads of the several departments, restricting them from filling up any vacancies that might occur, and he again asserted, that the measures which had been adopted went to cut up that patronage which had been viewed with such a jealous eye, by the roots.

One word more on the subject of the clerks, whom he had been forced to reduce. From the moment when government determined on continuing the war salaries, it became his duty to diminish the number of clerks. Compelled to declare there were more in the office than he thought were necessary on the conclusion of a peace, the two eldest of the seven in question (gentlemen of great merit) one of whom had been thirty-five, and the other twenty-seven years in the service, had been superannuated at their own request. For the other five who had been reduced, and on whose account he had been charged with superannuating young men, since thus called upon, he would tell how he had acted by them. Undoubtedly nothing could be more painful than the duty which had devolved upon him, but he had performed it to the best of his ability. He had called on the chief clerk, and desired him to give, boldly and impartially, a list of the five least efficient clerks in the office. His decision had been regulated by no other criterion than this. To the members of the board of admiralty who now heard him, he appealed for the accuracy of this statement. He was far from wishing to say any thing that could be offensive to the individuals in question; but of course it would be felt by the House, that among a body of gentlemen like the clerks of the admiralty, some must be found less efficient than others, and he had thought it his duty to the public to relieve them from those whose services were least valuable. He hoped he had now answered all the arguments of the right hon. gentleman. If any thing had escaped him, he should be ready to offer such further information as it might be in his power to give; [Loud cries of Hear, hear!].

observed, that he did not see any reason for the exultation with which the speech of the hon. member was received. The hon. gentleman had gone into an examination of the heads. He should follow him, figure by figure, and show that this exultation was not well founded, if it rested only on the statements made by that hon. member. He had not the advantage of being in the House when his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) on a former evening had made a comparison of some of the estimates of the present year with those of the last year of war; but he collected from the reply which had been made to it, that his right hon. friend had shown the expenses of the estimates to have exceeded those of the last year of the war by 20,000l. To this it had been replied by the secretary to the navy that this was no extraordinary matter, and that it was the case with almost every peace establishment since the treaty of Utrecht. He had not denied the excess, but defended it by comparison with other times. He had compared it with the expenditure of 1802, when that excellent public officer lord St. Vincent was in office, and he seemed to have insinuated as a fault in his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), to have been a member of that administration. If that was all the charge which could be brought against his right hon. friend, he would only say that he was the most fortunate public man in that House. The hon. gentleman had said, that there was an excess in the naval expenditure in 1802 of 60,000l. above the last year of the war. But he would show to the House, that there was no parity between that year and the present. For the estimates were that year brought forward in March, and referred back to January, which embraced nearly three months of war, and of course they embraced a great deal of the war expenditure [Hear, hear!]. In the present year, the estimates could only refer to a time of peace, for the treaty of peace was signed six weeks before Christmas, and might have been signed a considerable time before that, if the negociations had not been protracted to too great a length.

No man could doubt, after the battle of Waterloo, that that event would be followed by a stable peace; and therefore retrenchments ought properly to have taken place—not six weeks, but six months before Christmas. But, at any rate, ministers were enabled to commence reductions six weeks before Christmas. But how stood matters in 1802? Preliminaries were not signed till October 1801;—and he would appeal to every man who was so unfortunate as to have a recollection which carried him so far back in life, if at that time the country was not in a state of the utmost uncertainty and suspense whether those preliminaries would be followed by peace? Why, then, lord St. Vincent had not peace estimates, but war estimates to bring forward; and that minister would have been most culpable who should have begun his reductions an hour sooner than the treaty of Amiens. This was the first answer which he had to make to the most unfair comparison instituted between the periods of 1802 and 1816. But the interval between the peace of Amiens and the breaking out of war, with respect to the maritime affairs of this country, could admit of no other comparison than a broad contrast with the present time. It was not necessary to go into any details to show this contrast. Let any man reflect for a moment what were the navies with which we had then to contend—and what was the sort of peace which we then obtained. We had to contend with the whole navies of Europe; in the first year after the war broke out, we had to make head against the confederacy of the northern powers; and he should not be accused of exaggeration, when he said, that there was not a sound statesman in England, who did not then view our situation as most alarming. But was there no other circumstance, in which the one period was contrasted with the other? Why, the different state in which France then was, necessarily rendered the establishment of lord St. Vincent much more extensive and expensive than it was fitting any establishment should now be. But last of all, there was one circumstance in which the two periods differed, to which he called the hon. gentleman's attention, for it was decisive of the question. He alluded to the remarkable circumstance which distinguished the peace of Amiens, not only from the present peace, but from any other peace ever entered into by this country. During that peace we were obliged to send eighteen or twenty sail of the line to cruize in the West Indies, for the purpose of watching the French armament sent out to St. Domingo, and which did not sail till the month of June. During the present peace there were no armaments, no fleets of any power keeping the sea.

He trusted that he had thus furnished a sufficient answer to the statement of the hon. gentleman, with respect to the estimates at these two periods of 1802 and 1816. He should now come to the next branch of the estimates, the increase of salaries to the different clerks: and here he could not but solicit the attention of the House to the candour with which the hon. secretary built this increase on the motion of an hon. baronet now absent (Sir F. Burdett). Said he, the hon. baronet, though not an advocate of lavish expenditure of public money, was yet convinced that the salaries of the clerks in the departments in question required to be augmented. But how stood the fact? The hon. member for Westminster did complain in the House of a transaction between lord Barham and the clerks in his department, by which those clerks purchased their offices by the payment of a certain price; and after paying this price, and notwithstanding the bargain which had been concluded with them, their salaries were diminished. He had then said, though he was no friend to raising the salaries of officers under government, and though these salaries so reduced might still be sufficient, that the individuals suffering had a right to complain after the payment made by them to lord Barham, of the reduction made in their salaries; and he argued, that it was thought necessary to make such a reduction, lord Barham ought to have defrayed the difference, or at least to have refunded a proportional part of the price. Now, how could it be contended that the principle of the hon. baronet had been acted on at present? During the war, when the clerks had a great deal to do, and when provisions were high, no relief was afforded to the complaining clerks—they were allowed to struggle on—and now came a peace; and whatever were the distresses of the country, it would be universally allowed that provisions were now cheaper than they had been for many years before; and this was the period chosen by them for making the increase, when money would go a great deal farther in the purchase of almost every commodity, and notwithstanding, too, all they had gained by the victory over the income tax, which at once increased the income of every man one-tenth—all which was kept out of account, the salaries being not merely kept on the former footing, but even increased.

There were several other items in the estimates to which he wished to solicit the attention of the committee. And first, with respect to the hon. secretary himself; he did not allude to the augmentation of the salary of his chief office; that had been already pretty well canvassed in the House, and the discussion had been attended with the wished for effect; he alluded to other offices held by him. As secretary to the charity for poor widows and orphans he received a salary of 200l. per annum, and he was allowed an assistant at 100l. per annum. Now, he wished to put one question to the hon. secretary, but he must first say there was no man more willing than himself to admit that the office which he held of secretary of the admiralty was a most laborious office, and one which was highly useful to the country. But he would ask him, whether the minor offices,—admitting the great efficiency of the principal office, and if the efficiency was great it must be admitted that it had great emoluments, though these emoluments were now somewhat less than they were a short while ago—whether, for instance, the duties of the office of secretary to the charity to widows was laborious, in proportion to the pay? He asked this, because though 200l. a year was not so great a sum as 3000l., it was yet a great sum, and it struck him that the assistant, with 100l. a year, might be competent to discharge the whole duties of his own office, and that of his principal. They would find that the assistant's salary had been augmented exactly 100 per cent,; from 50l. to 100l. Now, if the assistant's salary was thus doubled, he could not help indulging a hope that that assistant would be found able to discharge the whole of the duty, and that they would thus be allowed to strike off the whole of this 200l. per ann. [Hear, hear!]—There was also a separate paymaster of widows' pensions. He would allow it was necessary that this office should be filled by a person of responsibility. But was not the responsibility of one as good as, that of two? Yet they would find 200l. set down to the hon. gentleman as secretary to the widows' charity, and 600l. to the paymaster of widows' pensions. He knew it might be said these were two different branches; the one was a charity to widows, and the other pensions to the widows of officers. Allowing this distinction, they would find, however, on looking into the estimates of 1813, that the paymaster of widows' pensions had only a salary of 200l. without any clerk, whereas he had now one at 80l. per annum. This of course would admit of explanation, and he should be happy to hear it explained. There was a charge for the inspector of telegraphs of 500l. Nothing was yet said as to whether this item would be abandoned or not. The hon. gentleman would spare him any farther observations on this subject, by saying that the vote would be taken with the exclusion of this 500l. [Mr. Croker here signified his dissent]. Then, if the hon. gentlemen would not leave out this, he would object to the estimate, as there were now no telegraphs to inspect; and besides, there was here an increase from 300l. to 500l. or of 2–5ths. The next head, that of messengers, was only 920l. a year; but small as the sum seemed, there ought to be some reasons given why there was not here a considerable abatement—why the report of the commissioners of naval inquiry on this subject had not been attended to. They had reported that there ought to be only four messengers; there were now, however, six. They had also reported that these four messengers ought only to have salaries of 120l. 60l. 50l. and 40l. amounting in all to 270l. a year. This year it had pleased his majesty's ministers, however, to lay before the House estimates, in which these six messengers were entered; one at 280l.; four at 150l.; and one at 40l.; making in the whole, instead of the 270l. recommended in the report no less a sum than 920l. Now, he wished to know why the committee in question had been so disregarded as it was in this instance, in the very teeth of their report?

He would pass over several items to come to the last, that of the office of pay- master of the royal marines.; and he would solicit the attention of the committee to a report of a committee in 1785, recommending the business of this office to be carried on in that of the paymaster of the navy, not merely from a regard to economy, but from the facility which it would give to the public service. It was true, a committee of the council differed from the committee to which he had alluded; but if the ministers were to shelter themselves under the report of the committee of council, they ought to adopt the whole of that report, and not merely that particular part of it which suited them; they ought to follow it out in all its recommendations. What did the committee of council say in their report? That the office should be regulated by reducing the salaries and keeping it at the very lowest ebb. They recommended in the first place, that the paymaster should, instead of 1000l. be allowed only 600l. a year. Nov, he would first ask, why the paymaster, whose office, on the recommendation of a committee appointed under an act of parliament, ought to have been abolished, and whose salary, on the recommendation of a committee of council, ought to have been reduced to 600l. a year, was to receive 400l. a year more? Then came the first clerk, the second clerk, the clerk in the barrack branch, three extra-clerks at 140l. each, and a messenger, making the whole of the branch amount to 1340l. exclusive of the salary of the council. Now, the next question he would ask was, why these persons were to be continued, contrary to the recommendation of the parliamentary committee, and agreeably to the recommendation of the committee of council; and why they were not to be paid at the rate of wages recommended by that last committee? They recommended the others to be reduced in a similar proportion, so that the whole should only amount to 720l. a year instead of 1340l. The whole result of the argument was this; that whereas, out of the fulness of their love of retrenchment, an extraordinary resolution of economy had been adopted by ministers since last" Monday se'nnight, from what motives he would leave the House to judge, in consequence of that resolution they had thought proper to recommend to the House an augmentation of salaries to a number of officers of double their proper amount. There were some other branches of the expenditure at which he was rather surprised. There was one item of 5000l. for parish duties, taxes, firing, postage of letters, &c. In 1813 this was only 3000l. There was another office respecting which, he wished for some explanation. He observed 1000l. set down to the vice-admiral of Scotland, and the charge of his office. If he had not seen these charges so stated, he should never have thought of asking here for any explanation. He should have thought it was one of those sinecures which were but too frequent in this country, and in no part of it more than in Scotland. There many offices without duties had long been held by descent, and the occupants, from the earliest period of their career as sinecure pensioners, never had occasion to sign one paper, except the receipt for their salary. That lord Cathcart, as vice-admiral of Scotland, should enjoy a sinecure of 1,000l., would not have surprised him; but knowing this to be a sinecure office, and that his lordship had no other duty to discharge than merely to sign a receipt for his salary, he owned he was not a little surprised to see, on the face of the estimate, that the 1,000l. was not merely a salary, but a compensation for the charges of his office. It now turned out, that he was under a mistake in supposing this to he a sinecure, and that the vice-admiral of Scotland was an officer of great and meritorious functions.—For the sake of the profession to which he belonged, he was happy to see so ample a provision for "disbursements of the assistants to the counsel of the navy in law suits, &c." The public would now learn that they paid for the luxury of law in this department no less than 10,000l. a year, be-sides400l. a year to an assistant to the counsel, and 100l. to a counsel, the assistant here riding the principal. He should wish to be favoured with the items of this 10,000l. This was a subject which was of course better known to professional gentlemen than to the country in general. The law expenses of government amounted, in many departments, to many thousands a year. The navy was 10,000l.; and the mint was, he believed a great deal more. It had been his misfortune to see a little of the details of the way in which the public money was expended in law suits. He did not mean to say that claims should be thoughtlessly given up to avoid litigation; that was not the objection which he had to make; but that which he would state to the committee was from his own observation, and times without number he had not only remarked it, but stated it to his friends, who had agreed with him in opinion on the subject; namely, that there was a profusion in the manner in which money was squandered in government law suits, which would be reckoned insanity in any private individual, however rich; that where the wealthiest individual, and the most prone to indulge in the luxury of law; the man with the keenest relish for that sport, and the greatest means to gratify it; would be contented with two counsel, or three at most, he had never seen a government cause carried on with fewer than five, six, or seven counsel. Having been in most of the courts of the country, and travelled one of the circuits where there were more crown prosecutions than in most in England, the result of his observations was, that where an individual employed one counsel, government employed always two, and often three; and where an individual adduced two or three witnesses, government often brought forward twenty or thirty. The government bills, therefore, compared with, those of the wealthiest individuals, were extravagance and profusion.

With respect to the point of superannuated and temporary clerks, his right hon. friend had complained of the system of superannuation, and stated nine instances of superannuation of clerks, the eldest of which was only 52, the next 44, another 27, and another 22—and that two clerks retired on the considerable salary of 150l. a year, in the bloom of youth, when they were capable of turning themselves to any other employment. This 150l. was equal to the half-pay of a major, and the circumstance required an answer. True, said the hon. gentleman, there had been these superannuations, but the two first on the list had served, one 37, the other 35 years. If the one was only 44 years of age, he did not see how he could have served 35 years. It was true when a man was old at 22, he might be considered in the prime of life at 9—[laugh.] A man bending under the load of his years at the moment when he was 22, might at 9 years of age be fit for the most arduous, service. But said the hon. gentleman, these clerks were not removed to make way for others, for none were appointed in their room. Now, he would ask one question, which if answered would put an end to the discussion. When seven clerks were superannuated, he might say he appointed no new ones; but he had another way of managing matters, the converting temporary clerks into permanent clerks. The seven clerks who had hitherto been only temporary were made permanent, with all the advantages of permanent over temporary situations. This question, then, remained to be answered: had he not converted such temporary into permanent clerks?

But he had been drawn away from sinecure places; and on the mention of this, he had no doubt an hon. baronet opposite (sir George Warrender) and two other hon. gentlemen would immediately spring up. Not that that hon. baronet was without employment. They had heard him, the other night, bring forward, with great ability, a statement of the estimates in the department to which he belonged [a laugh]. The other gentlemen also considered themselves bound to make a speech occasionally in that House. But, with every disposition not to apply to them the hard name of sinecure placemen, he was afraid he could not give them any thing else, if he had a due regard to accuracy of expression, and wished to call them by their right name. He meant to state his doubts, whether these three gentlemen contributed any efficient assistance to the country, as lords of the admiralty [Hear, hear!]. These three lords were what were called the civil lords. The office consisted of the first lord, three sea lords, officers of great professional eminence and services. So far as regarded the first lord, he was a responsible officer —he had to superintend and guide the great machine the works of which were the astonishment of Europe. So far as he was concerned, and the sea officers who assisted him, he would be the last man to propose they should not be well and handsomely paid. But he complained that here, as in too many instances, the salaries were utterly disproportioned to the duties to be discharged. The three naval lords were paid too little, as the responsibility rested principally on their head; for though the first lord and the administration to which he belonged were nominally responsible, the three naval lords had on their own heads a responsibility of a very different nature. And he would ask, what would be the feeling of the House and the country if (which God forbid!) any disaster should take place at sea? and on whom would the pure responsibility fall? The real blame would fall on the three naval lords; and these three men, in the excess of our economy, were paid only at the rate of 1000l. each, while we also paid three other men 1000l., each for doing nothing [Hear, hear!].—This was the usual way of prodigals and spend-thrifts; they gave always too little to those who deserved much, and too much to those who deserved nothing. These civil lords were nothing but sinecure placemen, though their names now and then might, no doubt, garnish a report. He contended, however, that it ought to be made out to the country that they did not merely lend their names, but that they actually did some work before they ought to get 1000l. a year each. He had heard, that it was the practice when there were any papers which required the signatures of the civil lords, the nature of which it was wished to keep secret, to send them to these lords with a part folded down, so that they knew not what it was to which they affixed their names. This he had heard from authority, which he could not doubt; and he had also been informed, that one of these lords had once felt so hurt at this proceeding, that when a paper in that state was presented to him for signature, he had tendered his resignation. The fact was, that these three lords were holders of sinecures, so far as the public was concerned: duties they had indeed to perform, but not such as the public ought to pay for—duties of great use to the right hon. gentleman and noble lord, who were the leaders of the ministry in that House. To attend to make a House at four o'clock—to vote (as their consciences directed them, no doubt), on questions of economy—to vote against the admiralty job, which had been discussed the other night, or in favour of it —to vote for or against their own existence, as their conscience bad them— these were their duties. But, important as they were to some persons, they were not such duties as the public should pay for. Those should pay them who profited by them; but they should not be paid by the public at the same rate as the more efficient naval lords—they should not be paid at all.

The hon. and learned gentleman said, that had it not been for the pledge which he had given of sifting the estimates to the bottom, and the paramount duty of redeeming that pledge, he should not have trespassed so long on the attention of the committee. The House itself had given a pledge on the first night of the session, and the chancellor of the exchequer had challenged the House to examine every part of the public expenditure. He (Mr. B.) had endeavoured to redeem the share which he had borne in that pledge, and to meet that challenge which had been given, and nothing remained for him but to express his heartfelt conviction, that unless the committee supported the investigation of the minutest parts of those estimates—unless the independent part of the House redeemed the pledge which had been re-echoed from the speech which had been put into the mouth of the sovereign—they would only amuse the public, deceive themselves, and forfeit their promises to the nation.

said, if it had not been that the hon. and learned gentleman had of late assumed a tone and manner not only unusual in that House, but scarcely to be tolerated in society [Hear, hear!], he should have felt some surprise at the extraordinary attack he had made on the character of his hon. friends.

rose to order. He said, it was very painful to hear himself so attacked for any expression which he might have used in the course of the debate. He thought he had made no more than a plain, dry, minute statement [Hear, hear, and a laugh from all sides of the House]. He appealed to the committee, —he flung himself upon the committee, and would ask whether there was any one member who could say that any thing which he had stated deserved the expression of the hon. gentleman opposite—for he begged the expression to be noticed, as it was quite new to him to hear it said within the walls of the House, that it would not have been tolerated in private company.

asked, whether it was a plain, dry, minute statement of facts, whether it was parliamentary, whether it was just in point of fact, or decent in point of form, to impute to members that convenient kind of conscience which could support ministers on all occasions? Would any such expression have been tolerated in private company as that used by the hon. and learned gentleman, when he talked of the convenient kind of conscience which persons connected with government had, on subjects discussed in that House [Hear, hear!]. He wished to know, whether the hon. and learned gentleman meant to justify the reflections he had made on the motives of his hon. friends, or the sneers with which he had insinuated that they possessed accommodating consciences. If he rightly understood the hon. and learned gentleman's gesture, and if he abandoned that which he had said, he should make no farther observations.

said, he did not mean to abandon any thing that he had said.— He was proceeding to make some further statement, but was obliged to sit down, by cries of Order! and Spoke, spoke!

rose to order. He protested against the menacing manner of the hon. gentleman on the other side of the House [Loud cries of Order, order!].

said, it was the duty of every member who spoke to order to state, in what the usual course of parliamentary proceeding had been deviated from. He had heard nothing in breach of order from his hon. friend (Mr. Croker), although he had been twice called to order; he therefore requested the chairman to protect his hon. friend from such interruptions.

said, that if the sense of the committee was to be taken, he thought it could not be disputed that it was disorderly to say that any member "had abandoned an insinuation." Such words were not consistent with the mode of proceeding in that House [Cries of, Why not?].

(the chairman) submitted, that when a breach of order was complained of, the particular instance should be stated, and that the words should be ordered to be taken down, so that the sense of the committee might be taken upon the case.

then proceeded.—But for the circumstance which he had stated, he would have heard such insinuation with astonishment, and he was therefore sorry that he had been mistaken in supposing the hon. gentleman meant to retract it. Such an insinuation, as that there were many members of the House who voted for every measure of government, whether they thought it right or wrong, was one which he heard most indignantly [Hear, hear!], and he felt it so, not only as being applied to his hon. friends around him, but as affecting the character and dignity of parliament. He would appeal to the noble lords on the other side of the House who had held similar situations to those of the members alluded to by the hon. gentleman, whether they would not have been most strongly moved by any such insinuation as the abandonment of any part of their public duty for some paltry private consideration. There were none to whom he would more confidently appeal on this subject than to those gentlemen who sat in the board of admiralty formed during the year of 1806, — than whom there were individually no more respectable or honourable men,—he would appeal to them", whether, in a similar situation, they would not have treated such an insinuation as a foul calumny? [Hear, hear]. But to go to the question before the committee—the hon. gentleman said, that he (Mr. Croker), made temporary clerks permanent by a sort of legerdemain. Now, on this subject, he begged to repeat what he had stated some nights ago, and again to night, that since there had been any prospect of peace he had not added one clerk to the establishment—that he had refused many of those cases in which individuals had those claims upon him, which might have been thought the most forcible. The hon. and learned gentleman had talked too of a sinecure office which he held, besides his situation as secretary of the admiralty—namely, secretary to the widows' fund; an office far from being a sinecure, and the salary of which was the same now as it had been fixed in 1739, namely, 200l. a year, out of which he allowed a portion to his clerk; and of this salary he had received neither more nor less than each of his predecessors had done.—As to the observations of the hon. and learned gentleman on the salary of the clerks of this fund, the cause of their having been lately increased was an arrangement which had been made within the last few years for paying the pittance of the poor widows at their own doors, instead of putting them, as formerly, to the trouble and expense of coming to London. As to the paymaster of widows' pensions, and the paymaster of marines, in 1813, papers had been laid before the House, which had been so satisfactory, that an hon. gentleman, who had intended to regulate those offices by a bill, had abandoned his design. The salary of the paymaster of widows' pensions had been increased from 200l. to 600l., because the disposal of 80,000.l. of public money, of which he formerly had the advantage, had been taken from him. This officer was obliged to find security to the amount of 20,000l. If the office of paymaster of marines and of paymaster of widows' pensions were added to the office of treasurer of the navy, much inconvenience would ensue, and the expense would moreover be much increased. The duty of barrack-master had been added of late years to that of paymaster of marines, and this change had saved the public 20,000l. in two years. The officer had nothing to do with the payment of marines when afloat, but was confined to, their payment when they were with their divisions, so that the duty was increased in time of peace rather than lessened. If any doubts remained respecting this office, he should move for the reprinting of the paper which was laid before the House in 1813. The vice-admiral of Scotland was one of the great officers preserved to Scotland by the act of union, and therefore could not be touched. He happened also to know that there was some business attached to it, as writs had been issued from it of late, but to what extent he could not take upon himself to state. As to the law expenses, the name of Mr. Jervis was sufficient to assure the House that there had been no unwarrantable profusion in that department. The salary of 400l. a year to the solicitor, and a standing fee of 100l. to the counsel, were the only permanent charges, and the whole of the expenses on that score were on the lowest possible scale. The inspector of telegraphs had always had the same salary as at present. The office would soon be abolished altogether, and he would then receive only the allowance authorized by act of parliament. The superannuation allowances which had been given to the different clerks, were according to the order in council of 1800, in approbation of which the House had lately heard so much from the other side. The increase of the salaries paid to clerks, had only been from 78,000l. to 85,000l. The mistake had arisen from the navy pay office being included in the calculation by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney), while this office had been in fact regulated by an order of an old date.

said, he was desirous that the committee should come to a specifie understanding of the question before them. The matter in discussion was briefly this —that in 1814 there were 445 clerks, and in 1816 only 421; notwithstanding which, by these estimates, the salaries of this reduced number of clerks would cost the country very nearly 15,000l. more than it had incurred for the same purpose in 1814.

admitted that the question certainly was, as to the increase of numbers and expense, and he defied him to disprove the statements which he made in both points: they were actually printed in the estimates before the House. The right hon. gentleman accused the admiralty of an increase in this year over the last, and yet it was with the year 1814 he now chose to make his comparison, that he might have the advance of the increase of two years additional length of revenue; but even with this allowance, the right hon. gentleman's statements were wholly ir-reconcileable with the facts and documents.

again rose to express his opinion as to the course which the committee should pursue in coming to the vote. He should propose that these estimates be voted for six months only, instead of a year. His view in this was to give time for government to reconsider them, or that they might be revised by a committee, which was likely to produce a more satisfactory result than any general vote of the House.

was aware of the extreme difficulty of coming to any satisfactory result even in a committee; but he conceived there was an important question of principle which should first be decided. It was this, — whether the committee would, under all the circumstances of the country, allow of such an increase of salary, whether that excess was 3000l. or 7000l. or, indeed, any other sum. It was admitted, that there was an excess upon the whole, though a reduction of the number of persons employed had taken place. What pretence could there possibly be for this, at a period when the people were in extreme distress, and when all those who received fixed salaries were, in consequence of circumstances over which they had no control, in a situation infinitely better than they were during the war? And was this particular year to be selected for the increase of their salaries, when almost all the other classes of society were suffering from a diminution of income? He should wish therefore to restrict the vote to the sum which these officers had before May last, and he should propose an amendment to that effect. In addition to the circumstances arising from the pressure of the times, this also should be taken into account, that these persons had in fact 10 per cent, added to their income by the removal of the income tax. As far as he was able to understand the estimates, there was not a single reduction proposed in these salaries. The principle acted upon was, vestigia nulla retrorsum. The hon. secretary had stated, that in the selection of the clerks to be retained, he had a painful duty to perform, which, however, he felt bound to perform, that the country might not be burthened with more clerks than were necessay. This might be very true, and the committee must also do the same thing with regret and reluctance; but they were the guardians of the public purse, and it was incumbent upon them to bring down the establishments of the country, not in such a way as might suit the convenience of the officers, but as corresponded to the real business of the country. He recollected when on a finance committee, to have found great difficulty in convincing some gentlemen, self-evident as the proposition might appear, that offices were created for the benefit of the public, and not for the emolument of the holders. Indeed, when the interest of the public came in competition with that of individuals, he had too often found that the former was neglected: but he trusted this would not be the case on the present occasion. Of course there must be many persons thrown out of employment on the return of peace, and he wished to see whether the House would sanction a continually increasing, and what appeared to him, unnecessary expense. If, then, he knew the amount of the excess of expense that was created by this estimate, he should move that this excess be struck off. The right hon. gentleman's proposal was liable to this objection, in his mind, that it was improper to sanction, the excess at all, even for the period of six months. He wished the further proceedings to be postponed till to-morrow, when his hon. friend, the secretary for the admiralty, would have ascertained and be able to state the exact amount of the excess, and what the salaries of the present number of clerks were last year. He should then be enabled to take the sense of the House on the excess proposed.

(the chairman) said, it might be for the convenience of the committee to state, that the vote at present before them was for 10,850l., being the amount of salaries proposed to be paid to the clerks in the admiralty office.

observed, that the amount of the salaries of the 28 clerks now retained might be stated as having last year been 9000l. it might be a few pounds more or less.

contended, that the committee would be perfectly safe in voting half of the proposed salaries that night, as they thus kept the other half in reserve, which they might regulate as they pleased. This mode of voting would not, therefore, sanction the principle of the increase, while it would unite all those who objected to the excess. It would be better that government should withdraw the estimates for re-consideration, and this would be the more easy to the noble lord, as he had been lately in the habit of withdrawing his estimates. Still he would withdraw his amendment, if there was an understanding that the committee must divide on all the other amendments of which gentlemen had given notice. Of this kind was the amendment of his hon. friend for taking away the salaries of the two civil lords of the admiralty, which, notwithstanding the outcry raised against it, he, for one, was prepared to support.

could not comprehend how the right hon. gentleman's object would be better attained by referring back the estimates to the consideration of ministers, without their having any sufficient clue to the sentiments of the committee on the subject. It would be perfectly easy for government to withdraw the estimates; but he was not convinced by any argument he had heard, that their amount was at all inexpedient. It was unfair to state that this additional expense would be fastened for ever on the country in time of peace. It had been unequivocally stated by his hon. friend (Mr. Croker), that although the number of clerks in the admiralty office had been only reduced to 28, it was maintained to that amount, simply on the ground which had rendered necessary a similar proceeding in other public departments, namely, that they could not be dismissed for the first year or two after the war, without leaving all the accounts in confusion, and thus doing incalculable injury to the public service. His hon. friend opposite had fallen into the same error as the right hon. gentleman, on this part of the subject. So far was he (lord Castlereagh) from considering, that by agreeing to the proposed vote, parliament would be pledged to continue the establishment permanently, that he was decidedly of opinion that at the expiration of the year, the House would not be bound to agree to retain a single clerk, who might be deemed unnecessary. If at the end of the year it should be found that the number of clerks which it was now proposed to keep, was too great, no vote on the present occasion could preclude parliament from reducing them to one half, if in their wisdom they should think proper so to do. His hon. friend (Mr. Croker) had opened the case so clearly, that it was unnecessary for him to dilate upon the various particulars of it; and in no point had his hon. friend been more successful than in his general defence of the tendency of the proposed system to equalize the allowances of the different classes of public officers, in such a manner as to relieve the lower descriptions from that state of abject poverty, which was inconsistent, not only with the consideration due to the individuals in question, but with true economy in the wisest interpretation of the term. This principle of increasing the emoluments of the lower classes of public officers at the expense of the higher, and more particularly of increasing their salaries at the progressive rate of 10l. annually, had in other public departments met with the countenance of his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes), and he was not aware of any difference of circumstances which could excite his hon. friend's hostility to it in the present instance. He repeated, that his majesty's ministers were most anxiously desirous to economise to all the extent that was consistent with their public duty. No feeling of pride or reluctance would prevent them abandoning their own views, if they should be convinced that they were not sound. But he owned he could not persuade himself that the objections which had been urged on the present occasion were valid; and in his opinion all who looked at the subject of economy, not in the narrow way in which by some honourable gentlemen it appeared to be considered, but with the liberal and enlarged feeling which ought to operate in all questions of a public nature, must be convinced that the proposition submitted to the committee was one which it was proper in the first instance to adopt, and that the adoption of it would by no means shut out either parliament or his majesty's government from any future modification, which circumstances might render necessary. Such being the impression on his mind, and the proposed arrangement being that which in the exercise of their best judgment his majesty's government thought the best calculated to benefit the public, all that they could do was to take the sense of the committee upon it.

then moved, that the chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again. He said, he would also move, that it be an instruction to the committee not to allow any increase of salaries beyond what they were in May last.

in rising to address the committee, was too well aware of the lateness of the hour, to encroach at any length on their time. At the same time he felt it would be doing injustice to his own feelings, to the interests of his constituents, and the sacred rights of British subjects, not to express the sentiments he entertained on the line of conduct adopted by administration. Before proceeding further, he would beg leave to ask, whether the salaries of the secretaries of the admiralty were to be regulated by the difference between a state of peace and war? or, in other words, whether the salary of Mr. Croker was to be reduced to 3000,l. in peace? [This question being answered in the affirmative, the hon. and learned member proceeded] He was gratified to learn that this distinction had at last been reluctantly acceded to by his majesty's ministers. The line of conduct adopted by the noble lord, was one of the most extraordinary that the House of Commons or the British nation had ever witnessed in any minister of the Crown. On a former occasion when that distinction had been pressed in a forcible manner on the attention of the House by an hon. member (Mr. Methuen), the noble lord had decidedly given his negative to it; and yet now, with an inconsistency which must strike even the most careless observer, he gave it his support. He called on the noble lord, he called on his honourable colleagues in office, he called on the gentlemen who usually supported his measures, to say, if in that line of conduct there had been the least justice or fairness [Cheers], He called on country gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to lay their hands on their hearts, dispassionately to weigh every circumstance which had characterized the proceedings of the noble lord, and to ask themselves how they could, consistently with a regard to conscience, face their constituents, and say they had honestly done their duty [Hear!]? He would not impute to the noble lord any unworthy motives. He would not for one moment suppose that he was actuated by any desire of degrading that House in the eyes of the world. He trusted in God there would never be a public functionary in Britain who would be capable of such conduct. But when he considered the procedure of the noble lord—when he contemplated the inconsistency which had characterized him throughout, he would appeal to the feelings of every honest man in that House, whether there was not an evident design to oppose whatever was proposed on his (Mr. Plunkett's) side of the House, without the smallest regard whether what was proposed was right or wrong [Cheers]? The hon. member for Wiltshire had proposed a measure which the noble lord reprobated as improper, and yet next day he comes down to the House and adopts the very measure he had reprobated. It was high time for gentlemen accustomed to follow in his train to think whether in consistency with their own credit, as British senators, with their fidelity to their constituents, and, he would add, with their dignity as men, they could any longer be so blinded by prejudices as to become the tools of the noble lord. For he would ask, how did the noble lord use them? He gave them the odium of supporting measures which he afterwards took to himself the grace of retracting [Loud cheers]. He regretted that he was under the necessity of saying so much, but he felt it his duty, and should certainly have considered himself guilty of an omission of duty had he not spoken. He would not believe, indeed it was impossible for him to believe, that gentlemen wished to degrade the House of Commons, but how could they vote in consistency with their own character if they for one moment considered the tactics of the noble lord. The resolution for economy was now agreed to. This was so far very well; but why was it not agreed to before? The answer was obvious. It was for the best of all possible reasons—because the noble lord and his colleagues would not suffer so dangerous a term as the word economy to be registered on the journals of that House; for had that resolution been there the noble lord and his friends were in danger [Cheers.]. But now it was quietly allowed to slip in [Hear, hear!]. In a very fine pompous manner the committee were told of the difference between the last year of war and the first year of peace. No doubt the expense of the first year of peace must be admitted to equal those of the last year of war. But there were elements for retrenchment which a minister alive to the interests of his country would lay hold of. These had in a satisfactory manner been pointed out by his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney), who, in a manner that must flash conviction on every mind, had, item by item, showed that instead of being lessened they were increased. No symptoms whatever of a voluntary nature were shown by government for any retrenchment. Government now stood in the situation of men on their trial. Clamour, an ignorant impatience for relaxation from taxation, and a thousand similar motives had been applied to the people for expressing their detestation of the policy of ministers. But he called on gentlemen in that House, whose minds were unfettered by prejudice, he called on them in conscience to say, whether they could believe ministers had ever one serious thought of retrenchment had it not been for this clamour, this "ignorant impatience [Loud cheers]."—He would tell the noble lord that that clamour had compelled him to do his duty so far, and might perhaps, if he did not take care, clamour him out of office [Cheers]. A very nice distinction had been made between clamour out of doors and clamour within door. To the latter of these he would call the attention of the committee, and he would ask, what did they think it meant? Why, it was simply this. Had the members who presented petitions—or rather the remonstrances of ignorant impatience—to the House, ushered them quietly, with all that suavity and smoothness so happily practised on the opposite side, there would have been no clamour. But because they did, in a manly, constitutional manner, scorn to abandon their duty,.—because they had introduced the clamours of the people, excited by the dereliction of the ministers from their fidelity—because they had often made these walls to re-echo with their determined opposition to the attempts made to press down a people already worn out, they were charged by the noble lord with making a clamour. The people had, however, assembled and asserted their rights; they had expressed their abhorrence of a most detestable, unjust, and inquisitorial tax; they had declared their indignation at the attempt of the government to cover the soil of the country with armies;—in a word, they had called loudly and unanimously for re- trenchment and economy; and the members of that House would grossly abandon their duty, if they did not attend to the voices of their constituents. This might be clamour in the opinion of the noble lord, but let the country gentlemen remember, that it was in consequence of these sentiments re-echoed through the country, that any thing had been obtained. The people had put their representatives on their trial, and the House had been electrified. The noble lord and his colleagues were doubtless alarmed at these proceedings; but there was a general cry for retrenchment and economy which could not be put down. The noble lord might attempt it, but the result of his experiment would be, that the voice of the people would be raised more loudly, and they would very soon put down him and his colleagues [Loud and repeated cheering

said, that no one could possibly feel more than he did, the importance of the great question of public economy, nor was more disposed to admit that it was a question which must be ultimately determined by the public voice of the country, and by the independent sense of parliament. He certainly had never presumed to denominate that public voice, or that independent sentiment of parliament, as clamour; but he did consider as clamour, and nothing better than clamour, the attempt to set up the dictum of the other side of the House as the standard of those measures which the government might view as wise and proper to be adopted. He was always ready to defer to the opinion of Parliament, because he knew that it was his duty to do so both as a minister of the Crown and as a member, of that House; but he should think he completely failed in that duty if he yielded merely to the systematic opposition of the hon. gentlemen opposite; for he was sufficiently convinced, that let the government propose whatever it might, they would resist it in the hope of obtaining a triumph [Hear, hear!]. A proof of that disposition had been conspicuously manifested in the very estimates which were now under consideration. What was the conduct of the right hon. gentleman on the first night of their being discussed? "Listen to me," he exclaimed, "and I will show you a primâ facie case, sufficient to justify every suspicion of the extravagant intentions of government, sufficient to refuse going into a committee at all up- on the estimates as proposed, and to insist upon their being sent back for reconsideration." And what was the result of that primâ facie case thus pompously announced? In the first place, if taken upon the broad ground, it had nothing whatever of truth in it; and in the second place, if taken upon the narrow ground, it negatived the right hon. gentleman's own conclusion. What was the amount of his argument? That because no reduction appeared in the first year of peace, there was therefore a primâ facie case against ministers, which ought to make that House refuse going into any committee. The government was not even to be permitted to be heard in its own defence, and all the ordinary forms of parliament were to be abandoned. Nothing would satisfy the right hon. gentleman, but carrying the war at once into the enemy's quarters; now, however, his tone was quite altered, and all his lofty vehemence had subsided into gentle moderation. To have supported his primâ facie case, he ought to have been able to prove, that in the first year of peace there was always a great reduction in the expenditure of that particular department; but as he could do no such thing, he now retired from the combat, and was forced to confess that he had made out no primâ facie case at all. The fact was, that such a principle as had been assumed by the right hon. gentleman would not be found in any period of our history; for there was no instance where the charge had been less during the first year of peace than it was during the last year of war. The right hon. gentleman's argument, was therefore completely knocked on the head; and from the tactics pursued on that occasion, he could be at no loss to judge of the sort of issue which would result from taking the dictum and clamour of the opposite side of the House, as the guide for regulating the measures of government [Hear, hear!],—He should now address himself to the observations which had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, and he could assure him that he always felt the greatest respect and deference for his arguments on every occasion. The hon. and learned member had made two parties in the question, and he should first of all examine whether the hon. member for Wiltshire, or those who voted with the government upon his motion, had any right to complain of its conduct. What was the course pursued by that hon. member? He brought forward a propo- sition for economy, which affected, not the service at large, but went only to the consideration of the salaries of the secretaries to the admiralty. He (lord Castle-reagh) marked the distinction, and urged it to the House, observing, that they were not then discussing the great principles of economy and retrenchment, but merely a single case. He took the question merely as it had been presented to parliament by the hon. member himself, not, probably, from his own discretion, for he doubtless derived much assistance, and much learning upon the subject, from the wise and luminous sources of the opposite side of the House [Hear, hear!]. At all events, he certainly could not think that the hon. member, or any who voted on that night, had just reason to complain of ministers, for they were willing to admit the very principles which had been laid down, namely that the order in council should apply to the secretaries of the admiralty, but not to the clerks. Of the wisdom and humanity of that distinction he still entertained precisely the same opinion; for it would be most unjust to reduce those to a state of destitution who had meritoriously devoted their time and labour for the public service. What was the course, however, which he (lord Castlereagh) pursued on that occasion? Did he call upon the House to negative the motion? No—he merely said, that whatever opinion the House might entertain upon the subject, it should be in a committee that that opinion should be allowed to have its effect, and not on the discussion upon the motion. He stated, without hesitation, that there existed no disposition on the part of government to maintain those salaries upon a higher scale in time of peace, if the sentiments of the House should appear to be decidedly against it. He did, however, observe a disposition to confine those two offices exclusively within the regulations established by the order in council in 1800, and to that disposition thus manifested, the government yielded. He was justified in concluding, therefore, that every one who voted upon that motion, voted upon the grounds which he had stated; nay, even the hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to concur in the propriety of those grounds; and he firmly believed that no one supported his majesty's ministers that night upon any other principle than because the proceeding of the hon. member for Wiltshire was irregular, and because the committee was the proper place for entering into all the necessary details. Under those circumstances, he could not but think that the hon. and learned member who spoke last, had lent himself a little to the point of impression rather than to the point of argument, and had endeavoured to draw conclusions from the issue of that night's discussion, which the facts connected with the discussion would not warrant.—With respect to the general question, he was certainly of opinion that the principle of instructing the committee not to admit any modifications of salaries, was one too narrow and limited to be acted upon with any beneficial effects to the country. Economy and retrenchment were, he well knew, of the utmost importance at the present moment; the situation of the country required that they should be carried to every practicable extent, consistently with the solid and substantial interests of the state; and the government, he would repeat, were as anxious to accomplish those great objects, as the people could be to see them accomplished; but in proceeding with this measure it was necessary to take care that they did not enforce principles which, with an apparent character of propriety, would, in fact, be injurious to the best interests of the public service

intreated the House to consider, whether the noble lord and his colleagues had not been guilty of the greatest extravagance in increasing the salaries of clerks at this moment. The noble lord had often accused the gentlemen opposite of making two parties in the House; but it was the noble lord who was making two parties, and putting the country entirely out of the question. The noble lord had long accustomed himself to a very high tone; but he would not be put down, and he hoped that no other member would suffer himself to be put down by the taunts of the noble lord. As to his motion on a former night, it might not have been extensive enough, but it did not justify his majesty's government in increasing the salaries of these clerks [Hear, hear!].

said, that the noble lord now found a great imperfection in that motion, but he had disliked it as much when it was confined to the secretary of the admiralty. It was difficult to know what the noble lord meant; but it was evident that he wished to deny the House time to consider the subject.

then withdrew his amend- ment, for the purpose of giving way to Mr. Bankes' motion

A division then took place on Mr. Bankes' motion, That the chairman be directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The numbers were:

List of the Minority

On the original question being put,

argued against the allowances proposed for the paymaster of the marines, the paymaster of widows pensions and the inspector of telegraphs, all these being offices, which at present he conceived totally useless, because all the duties assigned to them either closed with, the peace, or might be performed by other departments without any expense to the public. He therefore moved as an amendment, that the sum proposed to be voted be 57,623l. 16s. 7d., thereby leaving out the salaries of the three officers above mentioned

said, that he was surprised to find that no attempt was made to defend those propositions, when

maintained, that he had laid ample grounds for all the measures objected to on a former occasion. The office of paymaster of marines had, since the superabundance of the marine barracks was transferred to that office, been productive of a saving of 20,000l. to the public, and there was in these very estimates a proposition for a grant of 1700l. to certain barrack masters, as an indemnity to them for what they lost, in consequence of the gain to the public, through the arrangement with respect to the paymaster of marines. Then, as to the paymaster of widows pensions, it was an office of great responsibility. Indeed both were offices of considerable responsibility, the security for the former being 10,000l. while that for the latter was 20,000l. The allowance to the inspector of telegraphs would not be in the whole absolutely required, as it was expected that the office would cease in two or three months, and of course the surplus of the grant would be applied to the public service.

concluded, that the paymaster of the marines had at no time, especially at present, any duty to perform which might not be as well executed by the paymaster of the navy, as had some years ago been proposed by a committee of that House, with the concurrence of the treasurer of the navy. But even if the contrary were held, still he could see no reason why the salary of this officer should be as much now, when he had only 9000 marines to pay, as when he had to attend to 33,000 men in time of war. Indeed, in a short time the marines were to be reduced to 6000. The maintenance, then, of such an office could, in his mind, proceed only from a love of patronage, and an indifference to that economy which ministers were so loud in professing, merely with a view to gull the public. As to the paymaster of widows pensions, he could not conceive the ground upon which such an office was maintained in the navy after a similar office had been abandoned in the army as unnecessary. He con- cluded with observing, that no more should be voted for the inspector of telegraphs than was likely to be required, and surely ministers could calculate when this officer would be able to wind up his accounts.

contended, that as the paymaster of the marines had taken upon himself the duty of inspecting the barracks, if his office should be abolished, another, must be created for the latter purpose. As to the paymaster of widows pensions, it was not the amount of the sum, but the number of persons to whom it was to be doled out, and the security which he was to give, which ought to be considered.

said, that the question had been put to him whether the duties of the paymaster of the marines could not be performed by the treasurer of the navy, and that he had answered in the affirmative. But the commissioners of the navy were of a different opinion. They urged that there was no room, and that the arrangement would produce confusion and but a very small saving. These reasons had prevailed with the admiralty.

considered that the right hon. member's statement, that an office might be abolished, and 1000l. per annum saved, was of the highest possible authority. He thought, also, that the duties of paymaster of widows pensions might be performed by the treasurer of the navy. He took the present opportunity of asking for some explanation as to an increase of. 2,000l. per annum, since 1813, for parish duties; and made some remarks on the office of vice-admiral of Scotland. As the act of union stipulated for the office, but said nothing about any salary, and as the office was a sinecure, he thought the honour of bearing it a sufficient recompence. He should only add, that it had been a subject of triumph on the other side, that his right hon. friend had not contrasted the estimates of 1802 with 1803; but independently that the period alluded to was a time of hollow truce rather than of peace, he would observe, that the establishment for the navy at three different periods of 1802 was 125,000, 88,000, and 70,000, men; now it was 33,000, and yet the expense of the admiralty was to exceed that of 1802.

wished the hon. gentleman to look at the paper laid before the House in 1813, and he would see that it was impossible to transfer the office of the pay- master of the marines into that of treasurer of the navy, without making the latter accountant to himself.

said, that if a sum were now to be voted for the inspector of telegraphs, who must be reduced in five months, the House had better vote for any demand in gross, and then leave it to ministers to say—" You have voted so much, and we have now to show the amount of our saving." If the House voted the 500l. per annum, how did they know the manner in which it would be applied? Perhaps the office would be continued. However small the sum might appear in a question of finance, yet the principle on which it was demanded was most alarming, and required serious consideration.

asked if the noble lord conceived it possible for government to say prophetically on what precise day an employment should be given up? If no discretion whatever was to be intrusted to them, the country had better dismiss the administration at once. It was clear the salary of this office would be saved the moment it was abolished.

said, that very few individuals in the country would place any confidence in the economy of his majesty's ministers; but, at all events, the House might make what objections it thought fit; and as it was not stated when the telegraphs would be reduced, it was only left for him to vote against them generally.

deprecated the language made use of by an hon. member, that ministers spoke of economy only to gull the people. He, for his own part, was content to be judged by the same tribunal to which gentlemen on the opposite side so often appealed.

explained, and repeated his former statement.

protested against voting a sum of money which it was confessed would not be wanted. We were now in a season, of peace, and the telegraphs might be put an end to immediately. The admiralty said they could not name the exact day, but would render an account afterwards. He would ask what became of all the money that had been voted for the navy last year? a large sum must have been saved. But did the admiralty say that the telegraphs might not be reduced in three months? With respect to the paymaster of marines, lif ever there was a case on which the public must form a strange idea of their economy, it was this. Official papers stated that it might be abolished in 1813, a time of war; and an experienced treasurer of the navy acceded to this. Some technical objections had been made, but we were now in a season of peace. Gentlemen opposite had nothing to set up but the difficulty of arranging public accounts: one short act of parliament would get rid of all this; and, unskilled as he was in technical forms, he would undertake to frame such an act himself. The salary of the paymaster of marines, in the last peace, was 600l.; and if the office was retained now, it was mockery to talk of economy. The secretary of the admiralty had offered to do the work for nothing, and ministers refused. This was the seond day that offers to work for nothing had been rejected!

said, that government could have no motive for continuing the charge of 500l. but because they could not state the precise day on which it might be expected to cease. The right hon. gentleman, however, had attacked that, as he attacked every thing in what he conceived to be his duty; but whether his opposition was in the spirit of duty or the spirit of discussion, there seemed to be a sort of spell upon him, for he was never right in any one point.

urged the strong necessity of that side of the House continuing laboriously active throughout the session, in watching every item of the public expenditure.

The House then divided upon the amendment, when the numbers were, Yeas, 38: Noes, 124. The original resolution was then agreed to. After which the chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.