rose, he said, to present an additional charge against lord Ellenborough, for his conduct upon the trial of Charles Random de Berenger and others.

observed, that it was the duty of the noble lord, according to the usage of parliament, to state the nature of his charge before it was presented.

stated, that it was a charge against lord Ellenborough of partiality, misrepresentation, injustice, and oppression in his conduct upon the trial alluded to, and upon subsequent proceedings connected therewith, particularly in refusing to hear him (lord C.) upon his first application to the court of King's- bench for a new trial, and in rejecting his second application upon the ground that all the persons implicated in the same indictment did not appear to concur in the application, which ground he (lord C.) conceived to be utterly fallacious and to involve a manifest injustice irreconcilable with any principle of law or common sense.

The charge being read by the clerk, it further charged lord Ellenborough with countenancing and sanctioning the misrepresentations of justice Le Blanc in pronouncing sentence upon the occasion referred to. Upon the charge being read, lord Cochrane moved that it should be printed.

said, he could not consent to the printing of this paper. The noble lord, in requiring justice for himself, or in demanding it against other persons, should take care to confine himself within the rules which justice prescribed; and ought carefully to comply with those precedents of accusation which the House had, in former times, entertained. He understood, that originally the noble lord's accusation was confined solely to the lord chief justice of the court of King's-bench; but the article which he now wished to have printed and circulated throughout the country, purporting to be an accusation of lord Ellenborough, was, in fact, a charge against the judges of the court of King's-bench, though they were not named. Now, if all the judges were considered to be implicated in this business, the noble lord ought to have fairly introduced them in his charges. The former accusation was against lord Ellenborough, as a single judge, sitting at Nisi Prius; but the acts spoken of in the present charge were done by the whole court. But, independent of this, the noble lord had distinctly charged another judge—a most learned, able, honest, and upright judge. He had made a charge against Mr. Justice Le Blanc, which he had no opportunity to answer. The noble lord stated in this article, that Mr. Justice Le Blanc had passed on him a sentence which he considered unjust and oppressive—and that, in passing such sentence, he had made many statements, that were not warranted by the evidence. The learned judge certainly was not included in the accusation; but it left the poison to be circulated throughout the realm, without his having the power of justifying his conduct. The noble lord had named Mr. Justice Le Blanc, although he had not directly accused him; and, by so proceeding, he rendered it impossible for that learned judge to enter on his defence. He hoped the House had too much respect for the character of the judges, to entertain or warrant an insinuation of this sort to pass, which threw a shade on their integrity, without giving full opportunity of refutation. He must object to such a mode of inculpating a judge. According to the nature of this charge, it appeared that the proceedings of the chief justice must be incorporated with those of the whole court; and against the whole court he thought the noble lord should have proceeded. He was sure that, on reflection, the noble lord must feel, either in vindicating himself, or accusing others, that he should keep himself within the limits of justice.

said, he had made no complaint against Mr. Justice Le Blanc, whom he supposed to have no knowledge of the proceedings on the trial, except from lord Ellenborough's notes. He therefore imputed no blame to Mr. Justice Le Blanc, but begged the House to recollect, that the complaint was against the chief justice of England, for a falsification of evidence. He believed, from the state of the House, that not three members had attended to the charge while the clerk was reading it.

said, that the folowing words would be found in the charge:—" for countenancing, sanctioning, and authorizing the misrepresentations of sir Simon Le Blanc, when pronouncing the sentence of the court." Surely nothing could be more plain than this. It was a clear charge against sir Simon Le Blanc, for having misrepresented facts in passing sentence on the defendant.

said, that sir Simon Le Blanc was not charged with any wilful misrepresentation whatever. The learned judge had uttered misrepresentations, in point of fact—having been misled by the notes of the chief justice. If it were the pleasure of the House to reject the article wholly, he should not oppose their decision.

reiterated his former statement, that the article contained a charge against sir Simon Le Blanc.

said, the reasonable and proper mode would be, for the noble lord to withdraw the article, and, having corrected it, to submit it again to the House. There certainly did appear to be a charge of wilful misrepresentation made against sir Simon Le Blanc, which (however willing the House were to receive the charges made against the person formally accused), they could scarcely consent to be laid on their table.

said, after the statement he had made, that he imputed no wilful misrepresentation to sir Simon Le Blanc, he thought nothing farther was necessary.

recommended the noble lord to adopt the suggestion of sir J. Simeon. It would be very improper that such a charge should go out to the public against Mr. Justice Le Blanc. As the noble lord meant no accusation of that judge, he had much better withdraw it and amend it.

said, it was stated as plainly as possible in the charge, that the misrepresentations arose with lord Ellen-borough.

was sorry to oppose the receiving of the charge; but, after what the noble lord had said, and the suggestions that had been made, he hoped it would be withdrawn. He read part of a passage in the charge, which stated that Mr. Justice Le Blanc knew the evidence was misrepresented.

explained, that this referred to the affidavits.

said, if the noble lord persisted in pressing his motion, he would place the House in a very painful situation. He wished the noble lord to have complete justice rendered to him; but it appeared that he here made an accusation not merely against lord Ellenborough, but against sir Simon Le Blanc. The noble lord said, he did not charge the learned judge with wilful misrepresentation. If so, he surely could feel no unwillingness to alter the expressions. In all fairness and equity he ought to do this. If the noble lord did not, he should be obliged to vote against his motion; and he was sure, in so doing, no person would impute to him a wish to put a stop to this solemn proceeding.

expressed himself willing to attend to it, in compliance with the feeling of the House, and the charge was accordingly withdrawn.

moved the order of the day, for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the Butter Trade of the United Kingdom. The same being read,

moved, "That it be an instruction to the said committee, that they have the power to consider of the laws relating to cheese;" which was agreed to.

The House having resolved itself into the committee,

said, that after the discussion of the preceding evening, in which the question of the butter trade was referred to, he did not think it necessary for him to trouble the committee with many observations on the subject. He last night had stated his objections, generally, to prohibitory duties; but, from the situation in which Ireland was placed, he had acceded to the wishes of those gentlemen who were desirous that protection should be afforded to the butter trade of that country. All, therefore, which he should state to the committee on the present occasion was, the amount of the duty which he meant to propose, and the grounds which induced him to fix it at that particular rate. At present, the duty on the importation of foreign butter was 5s. 1½d. per cwt.; and he proposed to substitute a duty of 20s. per cwt. on foreign butter imported in British ships, and of 25s. per cwt. on that which was imported in foreign ships. With respect to the duty of 25s. on butter imported in foreign ships, he was aware that many objections might be made to it, by those who were interested in the foreign butter trade. But, he believed, unless that sum were adopted, the object which he had in view would not be effected; and whatever difficulty he felt in proposing any duty at all, when he did determine, and had made up his mind on the subject, he was bound to propose such a duty as would fully effect what he intended. He believed the butter principally came over in very small ships, and at a trifling expense; 20s. would not, therefore, be sufficient, with reference to them, and he had proposed 25s. Many persons, he believed, thought this duty not sufficiently high. He knew it was so considered by those who were connected with the Irish butter trade, who wished a duty of 30s. to be imposed. On the other hand, the merchants engaged in the Dutch butter trade would say, that a duty of 25s. was too great, but that 10s. or thereabouts, would be sufficient. Now, taking the mean betwen 10s. and 30s. he thought he struck on the point that ought to satisfy both parties. He then moved, "That it is the opinion of this committee, that in lieu of the duties now payable on all butter imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries, there be levied a duty of 20s. for every one hundred weight of all foreign butter imported into the United Kingdom in British ships, and a duty of 25s. for every one hundred weight of all foreign butter imported into the United Kingdom in foreign ships."

said, that this subject was of peculiar importance, as it affected a branch of the trade of Ireland, amounting, in value, to very nearly one-fifth of the whole exports of that country, and which, in a great degree, enabled her to pay for the British manufactures that were consumed there. If they considered this subject, they would find, as in every other connected with the commerce of Ireland, that the prosperity of the English manufacturer and that of the Irish trader, were inseparably connected together; and that he who would set up one against the other, proceeded on a principle that tended to ruin both. When, also, they considered that this trade carried some little comfort, and some share of wealth, to the poorest farmers in Ireland, they would see that it was an object of great magnitude to the welfare of the country, as connected with its tranquillity, morality, and industry. The right hon. gentleman said, there were persons who thought the duty he had proposed was too low. Sir John candidly confessed that he was one of those individuals; and, when he stated that the trade produced 2,500,000l. annually, he conceived its importance fully justified his feeling on that point. The House, in deciding this question, ought to look to the situation in which Ireland stood, when placed with respect to this trade, in competition with Holland, and other countries on the continent, that supplied England with butter. In the first place, they must consider their comparative exemption from taxation; next, their vicinity to the British market; and lastly, the facility with which they transported their produce, in small vessels, which incurred very trifling charges. Whereas, butter was exported from Ireland in very large vessels, which were liable to the payment of heavy freights, and ran all the risks of an extensive navigation. Therefore, to set Ireland on a fair footing with the continent, required a very considerable protection. He hoped, that, in the present instance, the duty imposed was not intended rather to procure a productive revenue for this country, than to give a just protection to the trade of Ireland. If, however, the experience of a year proved, that it was calculated, not to protect the Irish butter trade, but merely to produce an increased revenue for England, he hoped the right hon. gentleman would propose to parliament a duty that would be sufficiently large to protect the Irish manufacturer from the inequality of the competition.

observed, that having waited on the right hon. gentleman for the purpose of making some representations on this subject, he observed so much urbanity in his manner, and so much candour in his statements, as induced him to believe that the right hon. gentleman had the welfare of Ireland in general, as well as of his (sir Frederick's) constituents, at heart; and therefore, he went away flattered in his feelings that the right hon. gentleman would have proposed a larger protecting duty than he had done; neither was he without hope at the present moment that he would amend his proposition, Ireland was in a most distressed state. That country had, indeed, very little left, but the revenue derived from this trade. Grain was of no value. It would not produce the money which the grower had expended. As to cattle, there was no market for them. And such was the poverty of the people, that he could safely say, the inhabitants of the county he had the honour to represent had not the means of paying the parliamentary taxes, and the county rates. In this state of things, it was absolutely necessary, that the butter trade should be protected; and he denied that the duty of 20s. on the importation of foreign butter in British ships, and of 25s. on foreign butter imported in foreign ships, could effect that object. It would rather act as a stimulus to the industry of the foreigner, who paid no taxes; and the consequence would be, that this country would be overwhelmed with foreign butter, and the Irish butter grower [A laugh] would be ruined. He should, therefore propose as an amendment, that 25s. should be substituted for 20s.—and 30s. for 25s. in the Resolution before the committee.

hoped the hon. baronet would not, in the present state of this question, press his amendment. The right hon. Baronet (sir J. Newport) had expressed a hope, if the duty now proposed were, after a year's experience, found insufficient for protection, that his right hon. friend would come forward with such an alteration as would meet the object in view. The disposition of his majesty's ministers, as might be inferred from the observations made on the preceding evening, and on the present occasion, by his right hon. friend, was, to propose a sufficient duty, if that now submitted to the committee were found ineffectual. It was by no means considered as a measure introduced for the purpose of rendering the revenue more productive to this country, but was intended to give relief to the agriculturalist of Ireland. The right hon. baronet thought, that the inequality of competition arose, in a great degree, from the exemption of foreign countries from taxation, as compared with the burthens imposed on this. But Holland, which was the principal competition that Ireland had to contend with, was not so free from taxation, as might be imagined. It was not the exemption from burthens that enabled the "butter-growers" there, as his hon. friend had facetiously termed them, to undersell those of Ireland. The productive nature of their soil, and their proximity to the great market this country afforded them—these were their advantages, and against these a just protection ought to be granted. The importance of the butter-trade to Ireland and to this country, was very fairly stated by the right hon. baronet. In the last fifteen years, the increase in the amount of the export of butter from Ireland, and in the necessarily improved state of agriculture, was signal and progressive. In 1801, the year after the Union, the quantity of butter exported from the several ports of Ireland, was 225,500 cwt. In 1814, it was 462,000 cwt.; being more than double since 1801. In the last year, when they had to meet the competition of the foreign merchant, the quantity exported was 432,000 cwt. the average value of which was 2,269,000l. This statement would, no doubt, prove satisfactory to those amongst whom there was no dissentient voice on the propriety of aiding the domestic interests of Ireland.

expressed his satisfaction at the introduction of this measure, and hoped it would produce great relief.

recommended the hon. baronet to withdraw his amendment.

said, he would comply with the suggestion, as he was not supported in his motion by the Irish members, whose assistance he had counted on, in forwarding a measure of such importance to the interests of their native country.

thought the observation of the hon. baronet was rather invidious when he insinuated, that those members who had not supported his amendment were not disposed, as much as others, to watch over the interests of Ireland. He hoped the people of Ireland would not suppose that he would neglect their interests, when a fair opportunity occurred for supporting them. He, however, did not think it would be wise towards Ireland, to press the present measure too far, nor could she expect that the interests of this country would be sacrificed to her. In his opinion, the gentlemen on the other side had gone far enough for a case of experiment. If it were found necessary, they could, at a future period, proceed further.

assured the right hon. gentleman that he quite misunderstood him, if he supposed that he meant to charge him with being careless or negligent to the interests of Ireland. His feeling was entirely different.

said, he would not agree to the amendment, because he did not like to press a proposition on the House that might create a diversity of opinion.

The original motion was then carried.

rose to move a resolution respecting cheese, which he maintained stood on the same footing as butter. The duties on both should operate on the same principle. There was but one distinction on the subject, which was, that the interest of Ireland was not connected with the trade in cheese: but if cheese was not protected, the farmers in Holland would send more cheese than ever, after the protection for home butter. Such was the present state of the cheese market, that a cheese-factor from Cheshire had informed him, that the London dealers would make no contracts for the inferior country cheeses, but only for the best Cheshire and Gloucestershire, as the Dutch cheeses were preferred to our own inferior ones. He could foresee no argument against his proposition, in which he hoped for general concurrence. He would quadruple the protecting duty on cheese, on the same principle as the right hon. gentleman had acted respecting butter. He then moved, "That it is the opinion of this committee, that in lieu of the duties now payable on all cheese imported into the united kingdom from foreign countries, there be levied a duty of 16s. for every one hundred weight of all foreign cheese imported into the united kingdom in British ships, and a duty of 20s. for every one hundred weight of all foreign cheese imported into the united kingdom in foreign ships."

expressed himself in favour of the proposition, without which the cheese-manufacturers, in the different counties of England would be very much oppressed.

said, he had found some difficulties on this subject, but he had no wish to press his ideas against what might appear a general feeling in the House. He did not think that the question respecting cheese stood exactly on the same grounds, as that regarding butter. The hon. gentleman had proceeded on the same principle with cheese as he had himself done as to butter: but it appeared that, though in 1815, the importation of butter had increased as compared with the importation of 1815, yet that the importation of cheese had diminished one-third under the operation of the existing duty: therefore he doubted the necessity for increasing the duty on cheese to the same extent of the principle. If his impressions appeared wrong, it was his duty to acquiesce with other gentlemen. He begged them to look at the case altogether.

said, it was to be considered what the effect on the cheese trade could or might be, if it was left without the protection given to butter. The cheese dealers ought not to suffer by the advantages given to the butter dealers, in any fair way of looking at the case altogether.

said, that the imports of 1815 showed the necessity of the hon. member's resolution.

said, that those imports, though nominally in the year 1815, were only up to the 25th of January of that year; and he would recommend his hon. friend to take the official valuation of two years, instead of this first view.

expressed himself in favour of the additional duty on foreign butter.

was not altogether in favour of this system of protecting duties; at all events, if adopted in one case, they ought to be in others; for if the foreigner found the butter market closed upon him, he would try the cheese one.

said, the hon. mover was in his calculation misled by a false analogy. He thought, from a review of the existing duties, that the addition of 12 per cent. would be sufficient.

was of opinion, that an equal protection was due to the cheese and butter trade.

stated, that his only object was that both should be placed on the same footing.

The resolution was then agreed to.

rose to state, that he had some days ago moved for an account of certain seizures on board some of his majesty's transports, and the only papers that were presented in consequence of this motion, were some relative to a correspondence between sir Home Popham and the treasury. Now, the subject to which he alluded was this—a seizure had been made on board the ordnance transport Assiduous at Woolwich; a variety of contraband goods were found on board, seized, and lodged in the custom-house, together with the names of the parties to whom the property was addressed. A list containing those particulars was lodged in the customs, and though it could only convey an inedequate portion of information to the House, it was yet important that it should be forthcoming, for, in fact, it contained the only information which, under the circumstances of the case, the House was likely to obtain. He would, therefore, first, move for copies of all correspondence between the boards of customs and treasury, touching the seizure of the transport Assiduous. The hon. and learned gentleman said, that, as the owners of the transport disavowed any connexion with the fraud in question, and as they had memorialed the board upon the subject, he felt himself bound to move, secondly, for a copy of the said memorial. The third return for which he should move was for copies of all papers, inventories, lists, reports, or other documents transmitted to the board of customs relative to this transaction. The fourth paper for which he should move was, for a list of the names of the persons to whom the packages were addressed, distinguishing the names of those to whom the packages were addresed, distinguishing the goods found in each package, and the goods which each packet was stated to contain.

was not aware how such a list could be made up.

was determined that such a list should be produced as he was resolved to bring this business to light, and to sift it to the very bottom. The public could only get proper information by the production of every paper, and he thought it was proper that all persons who were on board the vessel, or in the slightest degree connected with it, should be examined. The mode by which this could be effected was only by moving for information in various shapes. He would not rest satisfied with a general statement on the part of the officers and crew, but would call them to give their solemn deposition in a proper place. He had heard on very good, nay, he would call it unquestionable, authority, that these goods to which he alluded, had been seized in the form of ordnance stores [Hear, hear!]. They had purposely been packed up in the manner of rockets or returned ordnance, and when broken up by the officers, with iron tools, it was found that the parcels in the inside had a very different address from the packages without. On that point he was determined to be satisfied, and satisfied he would be only on good grounds.

The motion was agreed to.

said, that in consequence of no answer being returned to a question which he had put, he should move for an account of the number of days which lord Clancarty attended at the post-office, during the time he held the office of joint post master general, the number of papers officially signed by him during that period, together with the dates of his appointment and resignation, and the amount of his salary.

said, it certainly happened to lord Clancarty, as it did to others who had held that situation, that he probably took very little share in the official business of the post-office; and as he thought the motion, if agreed to, would by no means answer the object in view, he should feel it his duty to move the previous question upon it.

observed, that lord Clancarty received no emoluments when he first went to the continent. His appointment was then considered as likely to create only a temporary absence; but it afterwards continued, and with the most signal advantage to the country, as well as with the most marked display of talent and ability on the part of lord Clancarty. It was, indeed, with considerable reluctance, and violence to his own feelings, that he had consented to withdraw from the situation which he held in this country. He had already stated, that he received no emolument, directly connected with his mission, though he had performed essential services at a very critical moment.

observed, that the only charge which lord Clancarty threw upon the public, was the excess of expense incurred, beyond his own personal fortune.

bore testimony to the distinguished ability of lord Clancarty, and to the great service which he had rendered the country, by the discharge of his functions abroad. With respect to the performance of his duty as post-master general, he could only say, that if the return were made to the hon. and learned gentleman's motion, it would not answer the object in view. From the manner in which the business of the post-office was transacted, that return might bear upon the face of it an apparently unimportant discharge of duty, while in fact all the duty that really devolved upon the office had been performed.

said, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the explanations to which his motion had led; and he begged to observe, that in making it, he was not influenced in the remotest degree by any invidious feeling towards lord Clancarty. What he wanted was, to illustrate the nature of the office itself, and he must say, that he thought he had completely attained his object. He did not blame lord Clancarty for holding the office or for receiving the salary, but he did blame the system upon which the office was still kept up and maintained. It was evidently a sinecure in the strictest sense of the word; for it now appeared, that any man might undertake it, and that without any detriment to the full discharge of its functions, he might be beyond the seas all the while he filled it. With regard to the circumstance of lord Clancarty receiving no salary or emolument when he first went abroad, there was a striking difference between the statement of the noble lord and the hon. gentleman who spoke after him; and he could not help saying, that whatever private sources of information the hon. gentleman might have, he was more disposed to trust to the accuracy of the statement made by the noble lord. The lord said he had no emoluments, but only his expenses; while the hon. gentleman affirmed that he had nothing but the excess of his expenses beyond his private fortune. If the latter were true, he should say that lord Clancarty had not been well treated, if he were allowed to spend a single shilling of his own private fortune in performing a public duty. As he said before, however, he apprehended the official information of the noble lord would be found more correct than the private intelligence of the hon. gentleman. No doubt, lord Clancarty, like all others who were sent upon public missions abroad, made no direct charge to the country for emoluments, but had the expenses paid which were attendant upon the mission: and as such missions now went, he thought that was the most safe and comfortable bargain which any diplomatic agent could make for himself. A sort of carte blanche was granted, and all the bills drawn upon the treasury were honoured without any questions. But how stood the case as to the situation of joint post-master general? It appeared that all his expenses were paid, and over and above that, he received the 2500l. per annum attached to that office. The question therefore was, whether, under such circumstances, the place itself was not completely a useless one, and whether it would not be the duty of the House to cut it off altogether as a sinecure.

observed, that lord Clancarty's appointment being, like all special missions, not attached to any fixed place, and uncertain how long it might last, the expenses attendant upon it were of course paid; but it did not, therefore, follow that all expenses of a personal nature would be paid. There were many, indeed, which in point of honour could not be charged to the public. With respect to his enjoying the salary of joint post master general, it should be recollected that the labours of lord Clancarty abroad were as great and greater than those he performed at home, and for them he received no direct emolument. As to the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman, if the return were made, it would afford no satisfactory information as to the real extent of official duty performed by lord Clancarty. Besides, it was to be remembered, that in addition to the function of joint post master general he dis- charged the laborious and important duty of president of the board of trade, and in such a way as reflected the highest credit upon his abilities and assiduity.

said, he felt it his duty to say that he believed no person had ever given more general satisfaction at the board of trade than lord Clancarty; but still he thought it more desirable to attach salaries to the offices in which the service was really performed, than to place persons in arduous situations without a proper salary, and then remunerate them by an office in which no duties were required. Lord Clancarty was gone abroad, his place was filled by the marquis of Salisbury, and no duty whatever was done; and this was the strongest possible case to exemplify the inconvenience of re-warding laborious offices without salary by sinecures with a high appointment.

said, that in consequence of the explanation that had been given, he should withdraw his motion; but there was this fallacy in the explanation that had been given as to the board of trade; lord Clancarty was not the only person presiding at that board; there was a joint controller; one of these was doing nothing, and in lord Clancarty's absence the vice-president was found sufficient.

begged the House would remember, that ever since Mr. Burke's bill, which abolished the board of trade, it had been found that the country required a performance of the duties belonging to that board, and that these had been transferred to other offices; and the question was, whether it would be better to recur to the board of trade, which Mr. Burke's bill had abolished? But whenever the House took the question up, he hoped they would take it up independent of individual considerations.

said, that Mr. Burke abolished the board of trade, intending that it should be supplied by another to do the duty. A committee of the privy council had been appointed for that purpose. He thought that a board of this sort was necessary; and if so, it would be better to pay the individuals employed directly, and not under any pretence to keep up a sinecure place.

The motion was then withdrawn.

rose to state, that notwithstanding the numerous discussions which this bill had already undergone; discussions that had failed in producing on the part of the Bank of England any defence against the exorbitant demand they were about to make on the public; notwithstanding, he repeated, all those discussions, he retained his former opinions on this subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (in this case the unwilling auxiliary of the bank) had not even attempted to controvert his opinions. It was impossible for him, therefore to allow this opportunity to pass without again calling the attention of the public to this particular branch of their interest. On the present occasion the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, instead of resisting this wanton and unreasonable demand on the part of the bank, and thereby obtaining the praise of every disinterested man in the country, had culpably (he did not mean it disrespectfully) acquiesced in the interested and extravagant views of the bank, and had sacrificed, to the injury of the public, from 2 to 300,000l. a-year, for ho other purpose than to swell the enormous and overwhelming treasures of this opulent corporation. The ingenuity of the defenders of this measure could not controvert the position, that the state of the question was this—" You, the public, have for the last eight years, and now have, deposited in the bank a stationary and permanent sum of eight millions and a half, out of which you have received, free of interest, an advance of three millions and a half." Was it not absurd to talk of an advance, as it was miscalled, under such a state of account between the bank and the public? And now, when 6,000,000l. was wanted, an interest of 240,000l. a-year was required for the advance; and this was, by a misapplication of terms, called a loan! Such a designation of the transaction was a mere mockery, and an insult upon the public, besides being calculated to deceive them as to the real circumstances of the case. Parliamentary interference had done a great deal, and would do more on occasions of this kind. It had already augmented the stamp revenue from 30 to 40,000l. by the adoption of the late parliamentary regulations. The next positive advantage was that which flowed from the present bill, by which a saving of 60,000l. a-year had been effected by borrowing 6,000,000l. at 4 instead of 5 per cent. The interference of the House had on those occasions alone created a saving to the public of not less than 100,000l. This advantage seemed to be doubted by his hon. friend below him; but why had not the public the benefit of this regulation in 1806, 1813, and l814, when the bank held, as they did now, the same public funds? At some future period the country might derive considerable advantage from the unclaimed dividends, to which the attention of parliament had been directed by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Bankes) and from which no less a sum than a million of money might be obtained. He stated it not on his own but on the best legal authority, that there was nothing in the act by which the charter was granted to the bank which would prevent parliament from taking the subject into consideration, and making such regulations as they might think most conducive to the public interest. Notwithstanding the way in which the proposition had been received by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, he felt it his duty again to press on that right hon. gentleman, should he extend to the bank the term of the restriction on their cash payments, the expediency of stipulating, on the part of the public, for a participation in the enormous profits accruing to the Bank from the exclusive circulation of their paper as the currency of the country. In all he had said he meant no offence to the individuals who had the management of the concerns of the Bank, for many of whom, on the contrary, he entertained great respect; but he objected to the system Which had been pursued, and should certainly therefore, take the proper time to move the amendment to which he had already alluded.

thought that the situation in which the public stood with relation to the bank of England, was neither more nor less than that of paying a large sum for the management of its own money. It seemed to him, that by the bill, the public was exposed to an unnecessary expense of 240,000l., owing to the amount of the balances of public money remaining in the hands of the bank, and which ought to be withdrawn.

said, that this advance had been made by the bank at a time when it was most wanting, and at a rate of interest below what would be demanded in the regular money market; so that, by obtaining six millions at 4 per cent. there was a direct saving to the country of 60,000l. a year. Amidst all the censures that had been lavished by gentlemen on the arrangement, no attempt had been made to prove that one more advantageous could have been made. He would not have risen to address the House but for the mistake that had been made by the hon. member for Glasgow, in asserting that this money was part of what actually belonged to the public. Whatever balances lay in the hands of the bank of England, were continued there by various acts of parliament, so that the accounts could not be now withdrawn. He censured the idea of blending all the accounts into one—which was not only inconsistent with the acts of parliament, but also with the due administration of the different public services, all of which required distinct accounts. Such a plan would also render it necessary to keep a much larger aggregate sum than there was at present, to meet the demands of the various offices. That amount was, during the war, much greater than it might be in time of peace, and the treasury would take care to keep it as low as possible. The money now advanced by the bank would not be withdrawn before two years; but might then, whether the accounts were increased or not.

thought the argument of the chancellor of the exchequer rather unfortunate. He had acknowledged that the bank of England enjoyed a great advantage, secured to it by acts of parliament—and for that very reason it was the duty of the right hon. gentleman to make a better bargain for the country. Mr. Ponsonby complained of there being any bargain made with the bank, without a previous communication with the House; particularly as, in the former session, it seemed to be understood that, in case of any arrangement being intended with the bank, some intimation would have been given. It was on that presumption that no motion had then been pressed relative to the subject; and having looked into the common vehicles of what passed in that House, he found that he did make an observation to that effect at some length, to which the chancellor of the exchequer gave a kind of nodding silent assent; so that it was taken for granted that no arrangement would be made without the participation of the House. No motion, therefore, was made. It now, however, appeared, that the chancellor of the exchequer not feeling that so strongly as he did, had concluded a bargain, and thence resulted the mischief which all complained of; for in reality, no chancellor of the exchequer, placed in the situation in which the right hon. gentleman was placed, could be a match for the bank of England. None but that House could oppose the bank with any tolerable prospect of success. It would perhaps be said, that he was desirous of running down the bank, and anxious to shake its credit; but he really valued the bank, and was as sensible of its services as any one. He would not, however, on that account be prevented from looking, in all our transactions with that corporation, to obtain strict justice. When those conversations relating to the state of the bank first commenced, much was said of the danger resulting to its stability from the attempts made to participate in its immense profits. But had its stability been affected by any concession already made; and would it be endangered by any that might be made hereafter? The advantage supposed to be derived by the public from the present agreement was 60,000l. a year, but in reality this advance, at 4 per cent. subjected the bank to no difficulty. The bank did not advance a single shilling of its own money; the advance was made from the public balances. He therefore could not assent to the agreement; and he was confident that had the House been apprized of the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer to negociate with the bank, that such measures would have been adopted, as would have enabled the public to treat to much greater advantage; but by the treasury assuming to itself the powers of that House, those advantages were lost. He could not consider the House bound by the bargain; he would therefore negative the bill; and if his hon. friend would propose his amendment, it should meet his entire concurrence. To his hon. friend the country was seriously indebted; for to his exertions alone might it be attributed that the public were better off by 100,000l. than they before had been.

considered those exertions which the right hon. gentleman so highly commended, as directly tending to annihilate all the fair profits of the bank. He would, therefore, advise all the bank stock proprietor a to divide as soon as possible, if they hoped to save any thing from the hon. gentleman.

said, he was not master of the details of public business, and did not know practically the mode in which the transactions between the bank and the government were carried on, or how far they could be simplified, so as to render necessary a smaller balance in the hands of the former for the use of the latter; but he thought the principle of economizing business, now so generally adopted in the management of extensive private concerns, might be introduced with advantage into those of the public, and thus reduce the quantity of deposits requisite to meet occasional demands. By this means a great saving would be effected, and the public would derive that interest from its own money which the bank now drew in its stead. He wished to call the attention of the House to the circumstances which had lately been pressed upon its consideration by his hon. friend (Mr. Grenfell), and which, but for his exertions in the cause of the public might have hitherto remained unknown or unnoticed. It could not be denied, from the statements and facts which he had brought forward, that the bank derived enormous profits from acting as the agents of government. For managing the public debt, this corporation was paid 300,000l.: the interest of public balances in their hands was equivalent to 5 or 600,000l. more. This source of profit was reduced by the interest of the loan which it advanced to government, but still with this deduction there remained 350,000l. of clear gain. This sum, added to the 300,000l. paid for the management of the national debt, swelled their income to more than 650,000l. The great advantage which had resulted from the discussions that had originated with his hon. friend was, that the public had become acquainted, by means of them, with the gains which this opulent corporation derived from acting as bankers for the nation. He (lord F.) was quite ignorant formerly of this circumstance, nor had he yet heard of any justification of it. He saw no reason why the public should not deal with these bankers as private individuals dealt with theirs. A private individual, when he opened an account with the bank, defrayed the charge of managing his business in one of two ways—either by leaving a balance in the hands of his bankers sufficient for his remuneration, or by allowing him a commission for his advances. What was fair in the case of individuals could not be otherwise if carried into the transactions of a corporation of bankers with the public. If the enormous balances which now remained in the hands of the bank were still allowed to be retained by them, they should manage the public debt on more moderate terms. The rate of management had actually been reduced, and there was every reason in favour of a further reduction. It had formerly been 530l. per million of debt, and it was now only 300l. In the time of sir Robert Walpole the charge of management was fixed at 360l. a million, and if that sum was sufficient then, when the debt was so insignificant, how much ought it to be diminished now, when the amount of debt had risen to 900 millions? The bank was always an overmatch for the public, and for chancellors of the exchequer. Even Mr. Pitt was beaten in his negociations by the active prudence of that interested corporation, and allowed them 450l. per million for the management of the public funds. When he (lord F.) stated the profits of the bank at 650,000l., he was far from exhibiting all their advantages, or giving any idea of their accumulation of wealth. The governor and directors kept their greatly accumulated treasures a secret even from the body of proprietors. It was conjectured on good grounds that they had not less thon 13 millions of savings, or surplus capital, besides the sum on which they divided interest. The governor and directors had not complied with the law which ordains a half-yearly dividend to be made to the proprietors, and a half-yearly statement of their affairs to be laid before them. When a demand was made by individual proprietors for an account of the savings or surplus, it was refused by the directors, and the majority of proprietors, who could have compelled the production of such a statement, was found by ballot to be against a disclosure. He was of opinion, that the law required such a disclosure, and that the jealousy entertained a century ago on the subject of immoderate and dangerous accumulation, which gave birth to this law, now imperatively called upon its due execution. If there ever was any cause for public apprehension from the excessive accumulation of wealth in the hands of any company or corporate body, that apprehension should now be felt from the immense surplus of the bank of England. He would not speculate on the manner in which it might be dangerous to the constitution, but he did not regard that danger as chimerical. The nation had probably no right to appropriate any of this accumulated treasure, but the legislature might order its division, and prevent its increase. He would state no opinion on the right which the public had to participate in the gains which accrued to the bank from the legislative favour of the restriction act; but he was decidedly convinced that we should take steps to confine within proper bounds the power and influence with which this opulent corporation was invested by the indulgence of the government, and the advantageous bargains it had driven with the public. It had even lately been adorned with one of the attributes of royalty, by being allowed to take the coinage of the country into its hands. He would certainly support his hon. friend's amendment, when brought forward.

said, the question was, whether the balances were the property of the country or not? The affirmative was admitted by the chancellor of the exchequer, by his introducing the present bill. The difficulty, however, appeared to be, how to get at this property of the country, fortified as it was in the hands of the bank by various acts of the legislature. The money had been placed there to meet the expenses of the different departments; as, so much for the ordnance, so much for the navy, so much for the artillery, &c. It was, however, never intended by the legislature that those balances should accumulate. If the balances of public money in the bank, as stated by the chancellor of the exchequer, were deposits for different services, under different acts of parliament, the legislature might make an act to alter this distribution, and to render them a general fund available for general purposes. The present bargain with the bank appeared to him most improvident and unjustifiable; and if the bill sanctioning it passed, without meaning any thing personal, he would not be able to refrain from calling the whole transaction a political bribe. Bank stock had risen enormously, the proprietors had got large dividends, several times they had distributed a great bonus, and their savings after all were accumulated to an immense extent. Those savings, the directors pretended, were to replace the stock which had been lent to government, The country, he insisted, had a right to the use of their own money, and ought not to pay any interest for the loan now advanced. He trusted that the House would throw out the present bill.

entered into a defence of the bank, and a justification of the present arrangements. He spoke at some length in reply to the arguments and statements of the hon. members who accused the bank of deriving exorbitant profits from the transaction of the national business; endeavouring to show that the payment it received for managing the public debt was not too great, and that it afforded at different times accommodations to the government, which were equivalent to the advantage accruing from the deposit of government balances in its hands. He said, that in 1800, when the charter of the bank was renewed, the subject of the profits which it derived from the management of the public money had been fully discussed, and the fair amount sanctioned by acts of parliament. He saw no ground for the assertion of the hon. gentleman, that the bargain made by government was extravagant. He further observed, that allowances made to the bank for transacting the public business, were as low and as moderate as could reasonably be expected. The bank were allowed 450l. per million for every million under 300, 340l. for every million under 600, and only 300l. per million when the sum exceeded 600 millions. This he conceived to be as moderate an allowance as could be made.

observed, that though the sum of sevenpence or eightpence for the management of a hundred pounds appeared small, yet the charge would appear more than sufficient when an aggregate of 900 millions was to be managed. He believed with his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Ponsonby), that the chancellor of the exchequer might have made a better bargain for the public than he had done, if, according to the dictates of his public duty, he had consulted parliament before he contracted any engagement. He was led to entertain this opinion from the improvement observed even in the terms of the present arrangement over those of last year—an improvement which he attributed entirely to the interference of parliament, and the beneficial exertions of his hon. friend (Mr. Grenfell). The bank was an overmatch for the chancellor of the exchequer, unless he took the parliament as his auxiliary. The right hon. baronet next adverted to the statements and reasonings of the hon. director who spoke last, and contended that the renewal of the bank charter was procured by an advance of three millions without interest; because, in consequence of the deception practised upon the public, it was believed that the balances were not nearly so large as they were subsequently found to be. He was convinced that the present bargain was a most injurious transaction for the public, and that it made the nation pay interest for the use of its own money. He would therefore support the amendment of his hon. friend when brought forward.

regretted sincerely, that it was not in his power to congratulate the chancellor of the exchequer on the bargain which he had concluded.

The bill having been read a third time,

rose to to move an amendment to the preamble of the bill. The preamble ran thus—" Whereas the bank of England are possessed of divers sums of the public money, arising from balances of several public accounts, and are willing to advance," &c. The amendment which he should move was, that all the words from the words "bank of England," to the words "are willing," be left out.—On the question being put,

observed, that this was a most extraordinary amendment, and if he stood alone he would take the sense of the House upon it. He himself had proposed that clause in the bill, and at his suggestion the chancellor of the exchequer was willing to incorporate it in the preamble. The right hon. gentleman had only testified a desire to have the concurrence of the governor of the bank, and requested him (Mr. G.) to consult him upon the subject. He had done so, and received this very oracular and equivocal answer—that the clause cut both ways. The hon. governor concluded by this remark, and he heard nothing more upon the subject. The clause, in consequence of this apparent acquiescence, was inserted in the preamble of the bill by the right hon. gentleman, without scruple or hesitation. The chancellor of the exchequer had since, however, consulted with the authorities of the bank; he had seen his error in acting without their formal concurrence; and he now came forward to move for an erasure of a clause expressive of an important truth, and adopted by him with deliberate conviction. The House, he was sure, would not sanction such conduct, nor lend their support to an amendment that proceeded so manifestly from the undue influence exercised over a minister of the Crown by the bank directors. He implored them not to permit such conduct to pass with their approbation, or to allow the right hon. gentleman so much to lower the dignity of his high office in the face of parliament and of the country.

stated, that when the hon. gentleman had given him a copy of his intended amendment, he had expressed a strong objection to it. He had taken it home, however, not thinking that the bill would come on that night. Surprised at finding it introduced into the preamble of the bill, he had been informed by the hon. gentleman, that the chancellor of the exchequer had no objection to it, provided he should consult the governor of the bank. By the chancellor of the exchequer, on the other hand, he was assured, that he had understood from the hon. gentleman that the governor of the bank had no objection to the insertion of those words. Mr. Mellish said, he complained of them because they gave an ex parte view of the question. He thought it unfair to have these words continued in the preamble. They might be true, but if the truth was to be spoken, the whole truth should be mentioned. If the advantages which the bank derived from the public were to be inserted in the preamble of the bill, it was but fair to insert also the advantages which the public derived from the bank. It would be only deceiving the public to have a partial account.

called upon every member of the House, particularly the independent country gentlemen, who belonged to no party, to observe whether he was not right in his assertion, that the chancellor of the exchequer was not a match for the bank of England. When, after having agreed to the preamble of his own bill, he consulted the governor and directors of the bank of England, and proposed to expunge a part of it at their pleasure, and in compliance with their wishes, must it not be allowed that the governor and directors of the bank of England governed and directed the chancellor of the exchequer, and endeavoured to extend their authority to parliament it-self [Hear, hear!]? Was the clause pro- posed to be expunged, untrue, irrelevant, or improperly expressed? Did it meet with any objection of the right hon. gentleman himself? Had he got new light upon the subject? Could it be now disproved? No! but it displeased the bank directors, and must therefore be expunged! Was not this a glaring proof of the influence which the bank exerted over the chancellor of the exchequer? He hoped the House of Commons would not degrade itself by agreeing to an amendment under such dictation, or allow the clause to be withdrawn to which it referred. How came it that the amendment was never thought of till the third reading? [Here the right hon. gentleman was answered, that the late insertion of the clause made this the first opportunity of proposing the erasure of it.] He would beg the House to advert to this striking demonstration of the undue influence exerted over a minister of the Crown by the bank corporation, and refuse its sanction to an erasure of a clause which expressed nothing but the truth; and by agreeing to which, he again repeated, the House would degrade its dignity, and lessen its respectability in the eyes of the country [Hear, hear!].

said, that it was but fair to consult the directors on such a point, for unless the bargain was strictly executed on the part of the country, they might not fulfil it.

declared, that he thought the indignant tone assumed by his hon. friends on this occasion to be entirely misapplied. The bill before the House had for its object to carry into effect a specific bargain entered into by two parties. He could see nothing improper in the chancellor of the exchequer consulting the governor of the bank, who was one of those parties, upon the propriety of introducing the words in question into the preamble of the bill. A string of resolutions had been submitted by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grenfell) on the one side, and another set by the governor of the bank. The intention of these words was, to insert in the bill the substance of the opinions entertained by the hon. member, who, in his extreme zeal on this subject, had made so exaggerated a statement of the accounts between the public and the bank: but if the advantages derived by the bank were to be recited in the preamble of this bill, it was but fair that the services of the bank to the public should also be recorded in the same manner. He certainly thought there was a great disposition to magnify the profits made by the bank; and the noble lord under the gallery had ascribed to them no less an attribute than that of coining—a privilege which, he be-believed, was not much desired by the governor of the bank; though it must be admitted that his figure would make a very handsome impression [A laugh].

observed, that he always thought long preambles to bills very bad things. But still, he conceived, that if the statement of one side of the question as between the bank and the public should be inserted, the other should also be included. He supported the amendment.

said, it was evident, that if it were not necessary that the bargain entered into by the right hon. gentleman should receive the sanction of parliament, the House would have had no security for knowing any thing about the matter. He spoke, not from private friendship, but from a sincere conviction, when he declared that he had never heard a more triumphant statement than that made by his hon. friend upon this subject. All that was now proposed, however, was to insert in the preamble of this bill, which was to give the force of law to the late contract for a loan to be advanced by the bank, a record of the fact as to the public balances now remaining in their hands. But no, said the hon. governor, no mention must be made of such a circumstance; we, the bank proprietors, must go down to posterity with the credit of having served the public gratuitously. The question upon the bill itself was one of interest. A loan of six millions was to be advanced by an agreement made between the chancellor of the exchequer and the bank, at a time when parliament was not sitting, at the rate of four per cent. Well, then, some gentlemen thought this money should have been advanced without interest at all, and others at a much lower rate of interest, considering the great profits arising to the bank from the use of the public balances, for retaining which they had made an express stipulation in this very bargain: but what said the directors of the bank to every idea of parliament using its discretion in revising the terms of this contract? Why, that if any alteration should be attempted, the bargain was entirely at an end. This was the answer of those persons who called themselves such steady friends and supporters of public credit; at a moment, too, when, the chancellor of the exchequer having failed to carry the property tax, they knew him to be entirely at their mercy. He was perfectly willing to acquiesce in what had been said of the fairness of stating the services rendered to, as well as the advantages from, the public by the bank; and although it might swell the preamble to an inconvenient length, he would challenge his hon. friend (Mr. Baring) to show that the public had ever received a fair equivalent. To him this objection to the introduction of the words recognising the mere fact of the balances lodged in the bank, did appear most discreditable, and to be nothing more than an unnecessary cavil to prove—as if such a thing required proof—the predominance of the bank over the mind of the chancellor of the exchequer. It became, however, the dignity of that House not to suffer its own legislative proceedings to be altered at the caprice or the menaces of the directors of the bank of England.

was of opinion, that the matter in dispute was by no means of that importance which had been attached to it in the course of this discussion. It in fact involved no point either of financial or constitutional interest, but was rather a question of feeling and fair dealing on the part of the representatives of the bank, who held themselves pledged to the proprietors to see the bargain, of which they had approved, strictly carried into effect. He certainly did not think the introduction of the words in question could prejudice the interests of the bank, or place in any kind of jeopardy the terms of the contract which had been concluded. At the same time, it was equally manifest, that the object on the other side was to convey an insinuation that the public interest had suffered by the arrangement, and was therefore so far objectionable, unless it was intended to make the preamble a vehicle of controversy on the subject.

said, that although these words were in themselves of little importance, yet they had gained importance by the manner in which their introduction into the preamble of the bill had been opposed. He thought the dignity of the House must be compromised, if ministers were permitted to withdraw words from a bill at the mere will and dictation of the bank directors.

conceived, that nothing could be of greater importance than the subject now before them. The country had suffered to an immense amount, from the transactions between government and the bank of England. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had indulged in an illustration of the different effects which would be produced by putting a guinea in the pocket of every man in the country, and putting the whole of the money so divided in the hands of a few. He wished that right hon. gentleman could only again put into the pockets of the people, part of the immense property lost by the failure of country banks, from the erroneous system of circulation in England, arising out of the monopoly of the bank of England—a monopoly for which the public received no adequate advantage. They knew that in Scotland, for nearly one hundred years back, there had been nothing but bank notes in circulation; but then there were no privileged banks in that country; they were all established, from necessity on a good foundation, and the public sustained no loss from them. The same advantages would be derived from banks in this country, were it not for the restrictions on the trade of banking, in consequence of the monopoly of the bank of England. In Scotland, during the present state of agricultural and commercial distress, the practice of the banks was totally different from what it was in this country. There, instead of limiting their discounts, they extended them. The bankers could do so with safety; they were all under the necessity of being possessed of considerable property in the funds and in government securities; and they could always therefore come forward, and lend their money on proper securities. But from the system of banking in England, it was impossible to advance money in this manner. So far from the public deriving any benefit from the restrictions in favour of the bank they had, on the contrary, been deeply injured by them. When he said this, he did not mean to condemn every part of the system of the bank of England, or to say that there was not much of it that he admired; indeed, he admired evey thing about it, but its monopoly—the power which it enjoyed of preventing other companies from doing the same good with itself. He observed some gentlemen impatient—as they had come lately into the House, they could not understand the question—he would tell them, however, that there could not be a more important subject than this; and that it was as much above every other subject in interest to the public, as it seemed to be above their comprehension.

said, that when he had agreed to the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman, it was only upon the understanding that it was not disagreeable to the governor of the bank of England.

said, he did not understand that the right hon. gentleman had said it was actually necessary the governor of the bank should declare his assent to the amendment; and in the conversation with the governor of the bank himself, he did not understand that gentleman to object to the amendment.

The House divided—

The words were then erased, and the bill passed.

, understanding that the navy estimates were before the committee, wished to make a few observations on a subject to which he had already called the attention of the House. He was afraid that the propositions he meant to make would tend to increase rather than diminish one branch of these estimates. The hon. member thought that those midshipmen who had not been promoted to the rank of lieutenants at the close of the war were very much to be pitied. He wished that something more should be done for them. Here the hon. member proceeded to state the hardships under which they laboured, from the want of half-pay or its total inadequacy; but, from the noise which prevailed in the House, we could not distinctly hear the nature of his statements. He had also to complain of the deductions to which this half-pay, small as it was, was subjected. This might be a matter of little importance to some gentleman, who appeared to have no inclination to listen to any thing on the subject; but it was of great importance to those meritorious officers, who had, many of them, only 50l. or 60l. a year to live upon. He thought they should at any rate be placed on the same footing as the officers of the army, who had no such deductions from their half-pay or pensions. One of the deductions to which he now alluded was that appropriated to the widows fund. He understood, also, that where a naval officer was entitled to a pension of 300l. a year for wounds in the service, a deduction from it took place, which reduced it to 250l.; whereas in the army there was no instance of any similar deduction. The officers of the army received their full pensions. This was so glaring a distinction, that it required only to be stated in order that the justice of the House should remedy it. Another hardship which officers of the navy had to complain of was, that when they lost their baggage by shipwreck, there was no allowance made to them, though in the case of similar losses an allowance was uniformly made to officers of the army. Another hardship was, that they received no allowance for travelling expenses, when ordered to join their respective ships. Another hardship, which fell exclusively on the naval service, was the loss which they often sustained by the exchanges in drawing their pay while on foreign stations. He could vouch, from personal observation, for the great inconvenience which they often sustained in this respect, having seen on different stations in India the exchanges as much as 25 per cent. against them. He had seen naval officers in India who had been seven years without any pay, and the shifts to which they were reduced were of the most distressing nature. He understood, also, that surgeons in the navy were not on a footing with those of the army, their half-pay being a shilling per day less. He could not understand the reason of this difference, as naval surgeons must, at least, be as skilful; and their duty was often more arduous. He had received a letter from several naval officers on the topics to which he now adverted, and which he should wish to read to the House. Here considerable noise and marks of impatience prevailed, upon which the hon. member observed, that those officers who had bled for their country surely deserved that attention which some gentlemen appeared so little inclined to give, who had been enjoying the comforts of home, and all the luxuries of life. Here the hon. member read the letter, which stated in substance, that glorious as were the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo, the House would better consult the interests of the country by making comfortable those who had fought those battles, than by erecting monuments to what would be best recorded in the page of history. He understood that the expenses of the proposed monuments in commemoration of these two victories would amount to half a million of money; but he thought it would be much better bestowed in making additions to the half-pay and pensions of officers. What he wished on the present occasion, when the navy estimates were under consideration, was, that officers of the navy might be placed on a footing of equality with those of the army.

said, he would not detain the House at present; but when it went into the committee, he should be perfectly ready to meet the hon. member on the various topics to which he had alluded.

begged to remind his hon. friend that the matters now brought forward were not in the estimates at all. He should therefore have thought that some answer would have been given by a member of the admiralty to the well-founded complaints now made. If the officers of the navy were not in an oppressed situation, which he maintained they were, then let the admiralty show it: but, instead of that, not one word of answer had been given to the complaints brought forward by the hon. member. The hardships under which midshipmen laboured had been detailed. Would the admiralty give no consideration to the case of those who were not included in the late promotion? What was the situation, for instance, of a midshipman who had been wounded? He had a pension; but if promoted to a lieutenancy, then he lost that pension [No, no, from the opposite side]. If it was not so, then let the admiralty explain how it was. He anxiously expected from them some reply to the well-founded complaints that had been made.

said, he should be happy to give all the explanation in his power on the various points adverted to; but he thought it would be more regularly and satisfactorily done in the committee.

The House having resolved itself into the committee of supply,

rose to move the remaining items of the Navy Estimates. The subjects which had been alluded to by an hon. member were felt by the admiralty to be of the greatest importance, and the House would duly appreciate the merits of the body of men who had been mentioned. He should more particularly discuss this subject on a subsequent item. The vote which he should propose was for the expense of the navy office, which would be found to be l,500l. less than was the sum mentioned in the printed papers. This arose from the abolition of the office of deputy comptroller, that officer having died since the estimates were formed, and from merging the offices of registrar and deputy-surveyor in those of the head clerks. He concluded by moving a vote of 82,669l. to defray the expenses of the navy office.

wished to know whether any explanation had been given of the fact, that there was an excess of two clerks in the different establishments in the present year above the year 1813?

said, there had been no increase in the establishment since the last year. There was a mistake in the estimates, which stated one clerk more than the real number. As to the number, compared with 1813, it was to be recollected that in the first year of peace, before all the ships came home, and the accounts were settled, the business was rather increased than diminished. When these accounts were settled, many clerks would of course be dismissed.

said, that the reduction of the civil departments should keep pace with the reduction of the military force of the navy, but yet there was only a reduction of 23 clerks in all the establishment, and an increase of expense of 19,000l. Small was the hope that any diminution of expense would take place, if the salaries of all the clerks were to go on increasing, according to the scale which had been stated. The whole expenditure of the navy in the different years since 1811, was not less than 20 millions; in the present year it was only 9 millions and a half; but in the present year the civil establishments were more expensive than they had been at any former period. He should state the opinions expressed in the reports of the committee on the public expenditure of 1797, of which the Speaker of that House was chairman, as to the sums requisite for the different civil establishments of the navy in that year. It was to be recollected that in that year the expense of the navy was 16 millions—the force 100,000 men. In this year the expense was only 9 millions and a half— the number of men 33,000. The admiralty office establishment in 1797 amounted to 32,878l. Certain fees, however, were then received, but were abolished in 1800, when the expense was raised to 39,991l.; it was in this year 58,883l. The marine pay-office was (in 1797) 1,780l.—now it was 2,340l. The pay-office was then 38,070l.—now it was 82,669l. The navy pay-office in 1797 was 15,524l. now it was 43,864l. The victualling-office in 1797 was 38,115l.—now it was 49,195l. This committee had stated, that the expense of the establishments was sufficient to carry on the service at a time when the naval force of the country was much greater than at present; and it was then thought that in time of peace a still further reduction might be made of 5,000l. per annum in the navy board. In all the departments a large increase would be observed. This was a primâa facie case, which he defied the secretary of the admiralty, in the elegant phrase of the noble lord (Castlereagh), to knock on the head. The same committee, contemplating the arrival of peace, had expressly considered the present case, and had stated that then probably great reductions might be made, more particularly in the office now brought into view by the resolution of the hon. baronet. He called upon ministers either to reduce their estimates, or to state some reason satisfactory to the country why they persevered in these unnecessary burthens. He would not enter into any question regarding individual clerks, because he felt that the whole estimate was liable to the strongest objections.

was anxious to follow the hon. gentleman over one or two of his statements, and to correct the errors into which he had fallen. The comparison which he had instituted between the expenses of the year 1797, and those of the year 1816, he held to be unfair. The change which had taken place in the navy since that period, and the unavoidable increase of expenditure which had grown out of the circumstances of the times, ought to be taken into consideration. The hon. gentleman had assumed, that because the number of men in the navy had been reduced, it followed as a matter of course that the business of the civil officers of the admiralty must be diminished. This was by no means the case, and the reverse of this might in many instances be proved to have occurred. He did not hesitate to assert, that the reductions effected on the estimates in the present year, were greater than those which had taken place in 1803 (which had been so often mentioned), as compared with the expenditure of the preceding year. Since that time, immense changes had taken place in the dock-yards, and these, though conducive to the public interest, had necessarily caused great expenses to be incurred. The introduction of machinery for many important operations, and of task work, were to be included among the changes to which he had referred, and these, though they effected a saving of labour, and ultimately of expense, had in the first instance, caused a number of persons to be placed on this establishment as inspectors, and had thus created a very considerable charge. To show that economy had been attended to in the present instance, he would state to the committee what had been done in 1803, and compare it with what had been accomplished in 1816. That comparison, which he was about to bring forward, referred to a proposition which had then been made for a peace establishment, and was not liable to the objection urged in answer to former statements. It could not be said, that the plan which he had mentioned was produced at a period when the peace was thought insecure, and new war was contemplated. At that time the probability was, that the peace would continue, and this was a plan for a peace establishment, which had been brought forward in 1802 (fourteen months after peace was signed), for the service of 1803. Many comments had been made on the comparison instituted between the expenses of the last year of war, and those of the first year of peace, and statements had gone forth to the world, calculated to induce a belief, that the most wanton and lavish expenditure was sanctioned by ministers; that economy was in no instance attended to; and that none of those reductions had been made, which the public had a right to expect would take place on the return of peace. Now, what was the fact, and what was the comparison between the estimates of 1803 and those of the present year? In 1803, instead of a diminution of expense, there was actually an increase of 46,470l.; in 1816, instead of an increase, there was a diminution of 8,514l. When such assertions were made as had that night been advanced against ministers; when it was asserted they were not careful to make any of those reductions which ought to be accomplished, it was proper that he should prove they had not failed to give satisfactory proofs of their anxiety to effect every possible saving. In order to show this, he would refer the gentlemen opposite to the navy board, which in 1814 had consisted of twelve members, but which now contained but ten. He was not authorized or disposed to claim any extraordinary credit for the noble lord at the head of that board on this account, but in justice to him he ought to mention, that when a vacancy occurred some eighteen months ago, from motives of economy it had not been filled up. With what justice could it be maintained, that no regard was had to economy, when it was thus proved that a commissioner-ship had been vacant so long, and it had not been filled up again. The gentlemen opposite, when they complained of the charges on the present estimates, ought to bear in mind, that a total change had been made in our ship-building system. The whole of the ships wanted for the British navy were now built in the king's yards, instead of being for the most part constructed in merchants yards as formerly. This arrangement, though productive of much benefit to the public, necessarily caused an increased charge on the estimates, as it created an increase of service, and an augmentation of the business of the navy office. Objections had been made to the circumstance of there being three surveyors to the dock-yards. The appointment of the third had been particularly called in question, but this he did not hesitate to assert, had been absolutely necessary, and particularly desirable as a measure of economy. It was of importance that one person should be occupied in surveying the yards, to look to the safety of the stores. One was necessary to make reports on the state of them at various periods to the government, and a third was properly employed in surveying the buildings which might, from time to time, be in progress. The increase, therefore, which had been so much complained of, rightly understood, would be found to have originated in the strictest views of economy. To compare the expense caused at the present day by the salaries of officers (which had necessarily been so much raised in later years) with the charge under the same head in 1797 was certainly unfair. The committee must know, that if that business had not been transferred to the king's yards, which had latterly been carried thither, an increase of ex- pense could not be avoided. If our shipbuilding were still going on in private yards, from the changes which had taken place, from the diminished value of money and other circumstances, the expenditure could not by possibility have been kept down to what it was in 1797. This then, when the great increase of our establishments was considered, it must be felt was altogether out of the question. The charge for the navy office had naturally increased, while those augmentations were made which appeared under other heads. Those who were there employed, received higher salaries than were formerly paid. If the most able persons were employed to transact the public business (and this he held to be true economy), an adequate remuneration for their labour must be given. At present he would not go further into the subject, but before he sat down, he would again assert, in opposition to what had been advanced on the other side of the House, that a pledge of economy had already been given in the course pursued with respect to the navy board, which having consisted of twelve commissioners, was now reduced to ten, and in which a vacancy that had occurred eighteen months ago had not been filled up, as it might have been, had there not existed an anxious feeling to effect every possible retrenchment.

deprecated the idea of reducing the necessary superintendance of the dock yards. For the shipping must be attended to. If those ships which required repair were not repaired this year, they would require still more repair next year, and if neglected, they would in the third year be probably quite unfit for repair at all.

observed, that when the question respecting the dock yards came under consideration, the remarks of the gallant officer would no doubt experience due attention. But with regard to the increase of salaries which appeared throughout these estimates, he could not, he declared, imagine any just cause for it; such increase at a time when there was on the conclusion of peace an indisputable diminution of duty and a notorious reduction of prices, could only proceed from a decided disposition to prodigality. He congratulated sir George Warrender on the discovery, since the last discussion upon this subject, of an accidental piece of economy of which he was not before aware: he had done wisely now to bring it forward, for instances of the kind were most valuable, as they were most rare. With regard to the great increase in 1803, after the peace, if he (Mr. G.) was not grossly mistaken, it was in the department of the yards, which then had undergone considerable alterations, while the reductions were made in the other civil branches. Not comparing these estimates, however, with that period, he begged to be informed of any adequate motive for augmenting any salaries since l815; yet the receiver of fees had obtained an addition to the extent of the whole amount of the sum paid to him, and the surveyor of buildings and draughtsmen had been raised from 630l. to 1,050. In short, there seemed on the face of the papers an avowed determination to take the utmost that could possibly be obtained from the consenting disposition of parliament. Ministers were acting, not merely on a system of profusion, but almost of insanity, with a studious design of insulting the people of Great Britain, without paying the least attention to their reiterated complaints against the undue weight of all public burthens.

said, he was sorry to be obliged again to intrude himself upon the attention of the committee, especially after the very indulgent hearing with which he had been favoured on a former occasion; but there were some points which had been alluded to in the course of the discussion which seemed to require a further explanation. He should first refer to an observation from the hon. gentleman opposite, who complained that there was no reduction in the civil establishments of the navy. In reply to that objection, he could only repeat what he had stated before, that he would defy the hon. gentleman himself, or any of those who sat around him, to produce a single instance in which there had been any reduction in the civil establishments of the navy during the first year of peace. In 1763, there were precisely the same civil establishments, as during the preceding year of war; in the peace of 1783, in like manner, the civil establishments experienced no reduction from what they were during war; and in 1802 also, the civil establishments were the same as in war. The only difference, in fact, between the estimates now proposed, and those which had been proposed on all former occasions during the first year of peace, was, that in the present estimates there was some decrease of the civil establishments, and in the former there had been none at all. In 1783, for example, there was an increase of the clerks beyond what had been kept up in war, the number being augmented from thirty-two to thirty-seven. It might be asked, was there any necessity for that augmentation? No doubt there was; and he did not mean to cast any blame upon the admiralty of that day for making such increase, because there was generally so much additional labour created by the very cessation of war, that a greater number of clerks became absolutely necessary. But, it had been asked by the hon. gentleman, why the salaries of the clerks were increased? He presumed that hon. gentleman was not in the House on a former evening, when he had occasion to discuss that branch of the argument; and he certainly did not mean to go again through all the statements into which he then entered. He would simply observe, however, for the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman, that the naval administration was induced to attend to the prayers of that most meritorious and deserving class of individuals, from the perfect and satisfactory proof which was afforded of their being in a state of the most abject poverty. He would put it to the House, therefore, upon the principle, not only of common justice and humanity, but of good policy and even economy, whether they ought to suffer men who had laboured hard in the public service, who were entrusted with accounts of great magnitude and importance, who were entrusted also with the management of money, and who were subject to a considerable degree of responsibility—he would put it to the House, whether such men ought to remain in a condition, in which they could not maintain themselves respectably, and in which even their integrity could hardly be considered beyond temptation? But, in point of fact, it would appear that the increase of their salaries did not create so great an additional burthen as was imagined. The salaries attached to those offices during the last year, amounted to 78,200l. (he took the amount in round numbers, without attending to any fractional parts); the amount of them for the present year was 85,000l., being an increase only of about 6,800l. and that increase was spread over a number of individuals not fewer in number than two hundred. But the truth was, that the increase was rather nominal than real if considered in its whole extent, and it could not fairly be considered as an increase commencing with the present year; for he had to acquaint the House that it had always been the custom of the navy office for instance to pay out of the contingents of the service, a certain sum for extra clerks, and to clerks for extra labour. Those sums amounted in the whole to 4,500l. Thus leaving a real increase of only 2,300l. He would pledge himself to prove that that was the only real increase of their salaries. With respect to the motives which induced the government to grant an augmentation, he was astonished at the imputations which had been cast upon them by some hon. gentlemen on the opposite side. Political considerations must surely have been wholly out of the question; and as to patronage, or influence, he should be glad to know what advantage could be anticipated from allowing a reasonable remuneration to persons whose services entitled them to it. He was quite satisfied that the House, when it knew that this most meritorious and useful class of servants had been for many years reduced to a state of the most abject misery, would not think the increase of their salaries was dictated by any very violent spirit of extravagance.

adverted to the statement of the hon. secretary on a former night; and now repeated, that the civil expenditure of the first year of peace was always equal to that of the last year of war. This might or might not be true of former years; but it did not alter what he (Mr. Tierney) had incontrovertibly shown, that comparing the estimates now brought forward for the first year of peace with those voted for the last year of positive war, 1814, there was an actual increase of 20,000l. It could not, however, be denied that, even as applied to former years, the assertion of the hon. secretary was not correct with respect to particular departments; for in 1749, compared with 1748, there was a decrease from 41,000l. to 37,000l. As to the peace of Amiens, he never had and never would examine it; but he referred to the noble lord opposite (Castlereagh), then in office, to state whether in the sort of jeopardy in which the nation was then placed—when, between the signature and the ratification of peace, a French fleet had been sent out to the West Indies—it was fit to make it a point of comparison [Hear!]. In truth, the hon. secretary to the admiralty had established nothing material to the real question, why the estimates of the present exceeded those of the last year by 20,000l.; but if, indeed, he imagined that he had gained any sort of victory, in proving that the people ought to bear all the burthens of war, in a time of profound peace, he was not at all anxious to deprive him of the triumph. He was aware that, let him say what he would, he could effect nothing; and, for this reason, he would not enter into the details: but it was a great and striking fact, that whereas in 1804 the charge for the civil establishment was 81,000l., in 1816 it was increased to the enormous sum of 230,000l.; and he apprehended that the country would not be satisfied without a strict inquiry into the causes of the prodigious difference. The hon. baronet had spoken of machinery occasioning fresh expenses, when, in truth, it had been put up merely from economical motives; and, if it defeated its own purpose, an additional ground was laid for examination. On the face of the papers it appeared, that, since 1800, the clerks of the admiralty had been raised from 18 to 28, without any reason assigned; and if he (Mr. T.) wished to take the sense of the committee upon the question, there was no mode of doing so now, as the resolution merely referred to an amount of money. Why did ministers refuse all inquiry, if they really meant to save the public money? It was his firm and conscientious conviction, that if the whole matter were probed to the bottom, very large sums might be saved that were now completely thrown away; and that he did not so assert without some foundation, was obvious from the conduct of ministers themselves. The ordnance estimates had been first laid upon the table, framed according to the extravagant plan of those now moved for the navy; yet, when the noble lord and his friends began to apprehend that they could not carry them without great reduction, they prudently withdrew them; and those gentlemen who before had made out the accounts, as they then said, with the strictest economy, now found, to the great surprise of all, that they could be calculated in a way that would save to the country a sum of about 140,000l. Of such use was the lesson which the House had lately given [Hear, hear!]. The navy estimates were not, however, to be reviewed; they were to be persevered in to the last, and by them ministers were once more to stand or fall. He admitted that the navy was the staple service of the country, and that it ought not to be reduced too low; but when he found that such men as lord Spencer and lord St. Vincent had thought a much less sum than was now required sufficient for its maintenance, he was unwilling to give more to lord Melville, especially when comparing lord Melville with himself. Within twelve months there appeared to have been a great and unnecessary advance in the expenditure of the navy. With regard to the unfilled vacancy of which the hon. baronet spoke, was it not a fact that the name of captain Bowen had been inserted in the patent of the commissioners of the navy? [Sir G. Warrender answered in the affirmative across the table.] So that in fact it was only a transference; and eleven commissioners yet remained, when eight were quite adequate to all the duties of peace [Hear, hear!]. The maintenance of this enormous system, at the present moment, was nothing less than a prodigal waste of public money. With what force had we to contend? The French fleets had been annihilated, and the Dutch had ceased to exist; yet, in proportion to the diminished danger was the large amount of money to be paid, that the country might be kept upon its guard. For himself, after due inquiry, he was prepared to vote for the abolition of the offices of two of the commissioners, from a conviction that they were useless; and he challenged any naval man to put his hand upon his heart and assert that, at a period like the present, the services of more than eight could be necessary to occupy houses in Somerset-place. Of what use was commissioner Cunningham at Woolwich? for he had now no duties to discharge, though the expense to the kingdom was not less than 3000l. a year, including the maintenance of crews for two boats and a yacht? It was only necessary to state the proposition of government to show how repugnant it was to the good sense of every one: in 1804 the sum required from parliament was 81,000l.: in 1814 it rose to 221,000l., and, now peace had been restored, without a chance of interruption, it was still further augmented to 228,000l., and this merely for the civil establishment. No man who voted for such a burthen would easily persuade the people (who had so universally expressed their sentiments) that he had done his duty; and if minis- ters persisted in forcing it through the House, they would justly forfeit the confidence of the country [Hear, hear!].

said, he was not surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman declare that he was heartily tired of the subject then before the committee. He could very well imagine that he must indeed be tired of it, for with all his acuteness and all his ability, he had most completely failed in every statement and in every argument which he had ventured to bring forward [Hear, hear!]. On a former occasion the right hon. gentleman had narrowed his ground of attack, and confined it to a single charge, or a primâ facie case as he had called it; but when, in answer to that attack, figures and irrefragable documents were brought forward, his primâ facie case at once tumbled to the ground, and he had not another word to say for himself. He had now, however, altered his plan, and taken up a new line of argument; but he was still just as unlucky as before, and he would venture to affirm that he could, in a few words, show the House that his new ground was quite as untenable as his old one had proved. Do not be led away, said the right hon. gentleman, by any vain delusions; do not imagine that I have been confuted; do not suspect that any thing which I said has been disproved. I never contended that the estimates in the first year of peace were always less than in the last year of war. I never thought of such a comparison: oh no: my argument was, that we should compare the first year of peace with the first year of war, and then see how the case will stand. [" The last year of war," was repeated by several members on the opposition side.] Why continued the hon. member, the case as referred to the first year of peace and last year of war, he had already met by a series of facts, which were unanswerable; but the right hon. gentleman had now taken a different ground, and compared the estimates of 1804 with the estimates of 1816, which was surely taking the first year of war with the first year of peace [Hear, hear!]. However, he did not care which of the two comparisons the right hon. gentleman adopted. He was prepared to show that he was equally wrong in both, and therefore he might have his choice [Here the hon. gentleman sat down, pausing for a reply].

said, he would give the hon. secretary his own choice, and that would save trouble. He certainly had ventured to state the difference between both periods, between the first year of peace and the last year of war, and between the first year of war and the first year of peace. Having mentioned that, the hon. gentleman might do as he liked.

—It was certainly very convenient for the right hon. gentleman to put the peace of Amiens wholly out of the question when it suited his purpose, but, if he really wished to make any thing of his argument, he ought also to have set aside every other peace, except that of the year 1748, when, indeed, there was a diminution in one particular department of the naval service to the extent of 4000l.; though, at the same time, there was an increase upon the whole of the estimates of no less than 77,000l.—He would now, however, advert to the new way which had been selected by the right hon. gentleman. He had compared the first year of war with the first year of peace, and his comparison was most unfortunate for himself. In 1794, the first year of that long and eventful war, from which they had so lately come out with unparalleled glory and triumph, the civil establishments of the navy were 61,000l.; the same civil establishments in the first year of peace—[" What peace?" was asked by several members of the opposition.] Was it possible, continued the hon. gentleman, that any person could think it necessary to inquire which was the first year of peace of that war which commenced in 1794? [Hear, hear!] If he must answer so needless a question, he would say the peace of Amiens, and leave it to hon. gentlemen opposite to find any other peace if they could. Now, the civil establishment of the navy in that first year of peace, the year 1803, were—what? Would the committee who heard the arguments of the right hon. gentleman, believe it? They were 118,000l. making a difference of no less than 57,000l. He trusted the committee would not think that he regarded that increase as unjustifiable. He was merely stating the fact, without presuming to inquire into the propriety or impropriety of the measures pursued by that administration; and that fact furnished a complete refutation of another of the right hon. gentleman's primâ facie cases. In truth, they were indeed nothing but primâ facie cases, for the moment they underwent a second examination they wholly disappeared [Hear, hear!]. In the dock-yards, the expense in the first year of peace was more than double what it was in the first year of war. In the first year of war, it was 25,000l., and in the first year of peace it was 77,000l. The same might be said of the out-ports. In the first year of war the expense was 5000l.; in the first year of peace it was 8000l. In short not to trouble the committee with going through every item, he would state, as the general result, that the whole of the navy estimates in the first year of the war did not exceed 550,000l., while in the first year of the peace it was no less a sum than 1,228,000l.! [Hear, hear!]. Now he should be glad to know how the right hon. gentleman, in the face of those facts, could pretend to maintain the proposition, that going to war always increased the civil establishments of the navy, and that the return of peace always diminished them. The truth was, that from the peace of Ryswick up to the peace of Paris, signed last year, there was not a single instance to be found in which the peace did not increase the ordinary estimates, and in which the war did not diminish them. That alternate ebbing and flowing of the expense was as regular and inevitable as the alternate succession of war and peace; and he would venture to say, that if the right hon. gentleman was prepared to argue, that the peace of 1803 was less secure than the present, it would only be so much the worse for his argument. The right hon. gentleman had afterwards entered into a variety of particulars, and among others, he had dwelt with great emphasis upon the circumstance that though two of the commissioners of the navy had been abolished, yet another was put in the place of one of them. Upon that statement being made, great and triumphant applause followed from the other side of the House. But while the right hon. gentleman urged that single fact with so much importance, he totally forgot that the individual so nominated to be one of the commissioners of the navy was also one of five commissioners belonging to another board (he meant the transport board) which was to be wholly and entirely abolished [Hear, hear!]. That circumstance was studiously kept out of sight. The commissioner of the transport board, therefore, who was thus transferred to the navy office, would, in fact, do all the business which had before been done by the five commis- sioners. It was to be remembered also, that the individual in question being a captain in the navy, he would, at all events, be entitled to his half-pay if he were reduced; so that after all, the only additional expense imposed upon the public by the arrangement was about 300l. a year: which sum ought in fairness, to be set against what was saved to the public by the entire abolition of the transport board to which he before belonged.—The right hon. gentleman had gone on from blunder to blunder; and it seemed as if a sort of fatality hung over him which made him every hour afford additional instances of the truth of an observation delivered on a former night by his noble friend (lord Castlereagh), that with all his expertness and sagacity, with all his experience, and with all that knowledge which it might be supposed his former situation would have enabled him to acquire, he really knew nothing at all about the subject of naval affairs [Hear, hear!]. He was at an utter loss how to account for his ignorance, unless, indeed, he could suppose that he was willing to deceive others, though he was not deceived himself. [Hear, hear! from the opposition benches]. The right hon. gentleman asked, why there was no diminution of the commissioners of the navy in London in time of peace? In answer to that question he would state what had been the number of commissioners maintained in London in every former peace. The right hon. gentleman was so angry with the peace of Utrecht, that he would not begin with that. What would he say to the peace of Ryswick? In 1696, which was the last year of the war, there were eleven commissioners of the navy at the board in London. In the first year of peace, there were still eleven commissioners. At the treaty of Utrecht in 1712, when the war was concluded there were also eleven commissioners at the board in London; in 1713, the first year of peace, there were—Oh, monstrous! monstrous!!—twelve commissioners! No doubt, however, the civil affairs of the navy service required additional commissioners at that period. In the year 1748, which ought to be a favourable epoch with the right hon. gentleman, for it was the only solitary period in the whole page of history which at all served his argument; there were ten commissioners; and, in 1749, being the first year of peace, they were reduced to eight, being reduction of two only precisely the same number which were now reduced; so, that after all they were no better in 1748 and 1749, than we were [Hear, hear!]. In 1762, the last year of war, there were nine; in 1763, the first year of peace, still nine; in 1783, the last year of war, there were ten; in 1784, the first year of peace, there were still ten; in 1801, the last year of war, there were ten also: in 1802 and 1803, the first years of the peace, there were still ten again: so that throughout every instance, he was driven from all his assertions, and he could make out neither his first nor his second primâ facie case. [Hear, hear!].— Really after such a specimen of the right hon. gentleman's talent for accurate investigation, he ought to beg his pardon for having, on a former occasion, imputed to him any knowledge whatever of the subject, though he certainly did think it natural to conclude, that when he held the situation of treasurer to the navy, he might have informed himself with respect to those particular points. He would call upon him, however, to show, with the single exception of the years 1748 and 1749, any one instance where two commissioners of the navy had been put down immediately upon the return of peace. For his own part, he was completely satisfied, that nothing could be worse economy than to diminish the means of checking and controlling the proceedings of the navy service. He hoped that great reductions might take place, perhaps next year.—That was indeed his own conviction, and the whole course of his argument had a reference to such reductions. He began with stating, he should continue to state, and he should end with stating, that whenever the voluminous and complicated accounts of the navy were made up, then, and not till then, very considerable reductions might be looked for [Hear, hear!]. With respect to the three surveyors of the navy, he had great doubts in his own mind whether they could be reduced with safety. As to what had been said concerning the reasons for continuing those surveyors, he should not think it necessary to dwell long upon it. The appointments had no view whatever to political considerations, to party feelings, or to the desire of extending the influence of patronage. The individuals were merely master ship-wrights in the king's yards, and had risen solely by their abilities. They had no other, recommendation; they could, in fact, have no other. What ob- ject could it possibly be to any administration to court the favour or secure the countenance, of a few master ship-wrights? [Hear, hear!] Above all, what interest could the government feel in taking a master shipwright from a situation which produced him 750l. per annum, in Chatham, or Plymouth, or Deptford, to make him a surveyor of the navy at one thousand pounds a year, except for promoting the general interests of the service? [Hear!] But there was one of the surveyors, the junior one, against whom the observations of the hon. gentleman opposite were chiefly directed. Of that individual, he would say, without fear of contradiction, that he had dignified his profession by his science and his success, and that the assiduity he had always displayed, as well as the important services he had rendered the country, were a complete justification not only of the choice that had been made, but would be a justification to that House, if it should vote, as he sincerely hoped it would vote his continuance in his office. It had been asked, what was the use of that third surveyor; he would reply that the use was to be found in the economy of the appointment; and he would inform the House how. At the time he was promoted to his office, the greatest inconvenience and difficulty, as well as loss, were experienced, from the want of a common principle in the rate of charging in his majesty's yards. The difference of accounts was so great, that in one yard the price would be 10l. a ton, and in another only six pounds. While the business of ship-building was carried on in that loose and irregular way, the risk of loss to the public was immense. It could not be otherwise, when perhaps they would nominally charge 10l. a ton at Plymouth for that which was rated at 6l. at Chatham. It became therefore most desirable to have an uniformity in the different accounts, to check them, and to prevent such a serious disparity between the mode of charging of one yard and another. The business of the third surveyor was to visit all the different yards, to put them all upon the same footing, to check any excesses, and generally so to superintend the business of those yards, as to prevent the recurrence of similar irregularities. He would venture to say, that since the appointment of the third surveyor (an appointment which was in no way profitable to him, except in the honour which his eminent talents had deservedly procured), he has, during the last two or three years, saved the country, not thousands alone, nor tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands [Hear!]. No one, indeed, who had any acquaintance whatever with the naval service, but must know that the superintending eye, the restraining hand, and the bold and determined spirit to keep every thing within its just bounds, to check all abuses, and to control all the different departments, could alone be substantially and beneficially done by the authority of a surveyor. It was in that capacity only, with that rank and station, that any individual would be enabled to produce all those advantages; and he felt that both as to the actual and the prospective economy of the appointment, the office of a third surveyor to the navy would prove one of the cheapest instruments ever put into the hands of government [Hear, hear!].

said, that in spite of the triumphant tone assumed by the hon. secretary, and in spite of the not very decent imputations which he had cast upon his right hon. friend. [Cries of order!]—The right hon. baronet repeated the expression, observing that he alluded to the imputation thrown out by the hon. secretary, that his right hon. friend was not deceived himself, however much he might wish to deceive others, and he would say, that in spite of that not very decent imputation, he had not succeeded in establishing any one point of importance. He had referred to the peace of Amiens, which his right hon. friend had said was concluded with a prospect of war at no distant period. It was within the recollection of the House, that that peace was made under very peculiar circumstances, and therefore furnished no parallel whatever. The navies of Spain, France, and Holland, were by no means contemptible at that time, but the navy of Spain was now no more, the navy of France was now no more, the navy of Holland was now no more. The hon. member had dilated considerably on the merits of one of the surveyors, and he agreed in the ample praise which he had given him; but when he made this statement of the merits of the third surveyor, what was to become of the other two? If he had saved so many hundreds of thousands, why were they to be retained, when they had been so lavish? That point remained unanswered; but the House and the public had a right to know why this unnecessary expense was to be continued. The noble lord opposite had taken great credit for the solidity of the peace, but it appeared, that the only benefit to the country, was a considerable increase in all the offices of government.

thought if the gentlemen opposite would not believe ministers were properly attentive to economy, after the admirable and convincing speech of his hon. friend (Mr. Croker), "neither would they believe Moses and the Prophets" [A laugh]. An hon. gentleman opposite had said he believed every person connected with the administration of the navy were insane, from the sums which they had thought it right to pay to the surveyors and draftsmen of the dockyards. This was touching on a very nice point, but he would venture to say, that he (Sir J. Yorke) had never been insane in his life, and yet he had had a good deal to do with the advance made on the salaries of the officers who had been mentioned. He denied that in this there had been any deviation from economy, and indeed he might say, that in most instances the Admiralty looked at the two sides of a shilling before they spent it. Nothing could be more inconsistent than the various charges preferred against that board. Sometimes the members of it were represented to be wasteful and extravagant in the extreme, and at others, they were described as being mean and cruel to the last degree. They were censured for not doing more for the captains in the navy; for not augmenting the half-pay of the lieutenants, and for not making a more ample provision for the midshipmen. These statements were boldly made against them, and those with whom they originated went fluently on without reflecting, that if all they thought proper to complain of in these respects were removed, it would be impossible to pay any attention to economy. They did not give themselves time to consider that even the augmentation of the lieutenants' half-pay would throw a great additional charge on the finances of the country. With respect to the appointment of a surveyor of the buildings, he would contend, that such an officer had been much wanted, and that the determination come to on this subject was perfectly consistent with true, economy. The individual selected to fill that situation was a gentleman of great talents. His exertions had been most beneficial to the service, and had caused immense savings to the public. It was fit such a person should be liberally remunerated for his labours, and it was much better to pay him well than to treat him so that he would be likely to make his bow and retire. The three draftsmen employed could not with propriety be dispensed with. The science which they professed was no very mean science. It was no easy thing to make the draft of a ship correct in every particular, and it required a considerable period to enable the draftsman to do this in a satisfactory manner. When persons were competent to such a task, would it be wise to let them go away to effect a small saving? Was it not better to pay them liberally, than to leave them in danger of starving, that they might be tempted to carry their professional knowledge to other countries, where it would be more highly valued? Could any gentleman wish that they should be thus compelled to quit their native country to go and engage themselves in the service of its enemies. For whom could it be wished they should draw, if not for England, to sustain the glory of the British navy. The right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport), who was so anxious for a reduction on these estimates, had said, with all his accustomed eloquence, "the navy of France was no more; the navy of Spain was no more; the navy of Holland was no more;" and he apprehended he wished our own navy also no more;—at least this would be the necessary consequence of acting on his plans of economy. An hon. gentleman opposite had inquired, if the lower classes of those persons, with respect to whose salaries, an alteration had recently been made, were in such distress that they could hardly procure food and clothing, why the admiralty had not commenced the increase of salaries by making their incomes greater than they had yet been made? His answer to this question was, that if such a step had been taken, the higher classes would have been dissatisfied. If the lower classes had been raised to any thing like an equality with them, the higher classes would immediately have asked what was to become of them, and claimed some further improvement of their situation. The arrangement which had been made conferred no benefit at all on the higher classes; it was only to the lowest of all and to part of the interme- diate class that the measure in question gave any immediate advantage. He thought it impossible for those who knew what had been the distress of the lowest class, to deny that it was the duty of government to do something for them. Their poverty had been extreme. One unfortunate man from among them, had been hanged within the last ten months for forgery [A laugh]. This person, whose name was Bradford, had been in the possession of a salary of only 90l. per annum, and had been enabled, from the situation in which he stood, to commit a great forgery on the victualling board. It had been discovered, brought home to him, and the sentence of the law had been carried into execution [A laugh]. He was surprised at the feeling this statement seemed to create on the opposite side of the House. He should have expected it would have been considered a very serious matter by those who had so lately been weeping and mourning over the convicts now in Newgate, on account of their not having yet undergone the sentence of the law [Hear, hear!]. Those who had displayed so much sensibility on this subject, ought to have had some feeling for the family of the unfortunate Bradford, who it must be admitted had been with a wholly inadequate salary exposed to great temptations.—He now came to notice what had been said of the commissioner appointed to the two yards of Deptford and Woolwich. That appointment, he believed he might venture to remind the right hon. gentleman, who had put himself most forward in this war of words, had taken place under that administration of which he was a distinguished member. A commissioner once placed in the situation referred to was found of too much importance to be afterwards put away. It was impossible for an individual to be better employed, than was the commissioner in question, where such a variety of objects called for his attention. Where such vast riches were deposited, every officer who heard him must know, that a vigilant commissioner must render a very important service to the public, and cause a saving greatly exceeding any salary he could receive, by merely walking through the yards occasionally, though he did not find it necessary to speak one word. An awful challenge had been given by one right hon. gentleman who valued himself much upon having established what he believed he had called—but he (sir J. Yorke) was not much of a scholar—a primâ facie case. The right hon. gentleman had said in very awful language, which that right hon. member was a good deal in the habit of using, that if any man could lay his hand upon his heart, and say of these estimates, that they could not be reduced as he had contended they might be, he would then give up the whole business. Sir Joseph said, he would answer this challenge. He would lay his hand upon his heart and say a reduction could not be made on the estimates of more than a few thousand pounds in the present year. What might be done in the next he would not venture to prophecy, as he might not continue in this world to witness the result [A laugh]. He, however, if he lived, should differ much from ministers, and feel greatly disappointed, if every attention were not paid to economy [Hear, hear!].

observed, that he concurred in every eulogium which had been passed upon the merits of the third surveyor; no one could say more in his praise than his merits entitled him to. With respect to the draughtsmen, he saw no reason why they should be continued at their present establishment. They were not wanted to the same extent as in time of war. The commissioners of the navy were perfectly different in the times to which the honourable secretary had referred. There was then a lord high admiral, but no navy board: the commissioners of the navy were the very persons who conducted the business of the admiralty. The navy office would have as much to do for the next eighteen months as they had during the war: but with respect to the admiralty board, it ought to be cut down directly. The hon. gentleman concluded by putting some questions relating to the payment of navy prize-money.

rose to express his approbation of the conduct of the second surveyor, as well as the third. He had not noticed this officer individually, because his appointment had not been individually attached. In answer to what the gallant admiral had said of commissioners of the navy doing the duty of the admiralty, he was wholly mistaken—the admiralty was at the period referred to, constituted exactly as it was at present.

said, the salaries of the admiralty clerks before the late changes were carried into effect, had been on the average 190l. per annum to each man. The recent increase made them average 280l. This he thought was a higher rate of remuneration than was necessary.

replied, that these admiralty clerks were at a lower average of salary than in any other office under government, and much lower than the clerks of the bank and the East India house.

agreed in the policy of paying an adequate salary to clerks who were employed in confidential and responsible stations. He had always acted upon that principle in his own private concerns; and it was therefore the last object upon which he should be disposed to economise too strictly. At the same time he must observe, that the admiralty clerks were actually paid a higher average salary than was paid either by the bank, by the East India company, or by any private merchant in the city of London. The fact was, however, that what struck every one as a remarkable impropriety was, the point of time now chosen for augmenting those salaries, when, as had been justly observed, there was every reason for reducing instead of increasing them: 600l. a year (and that would be found the real average), was worth more now than 800l. two years ago. There was one charge in the estimates upon which he was anxious to ask a question. He wished to know why there were three draughtsmen to the surveyor of buildings? What buildings could now be carrying on by the admiralty which could require, first a surveyor of buildings, and three draughtsmen?

said, the draughtsmen were the assistants of the surveyor, and with respect to their continuance in office, he could assure the House there would be some important alterations next year. A reduction had taken place in the first and second classes of clerks, so much so, that that very morning a complaint had been made by three of them at the admiralty board, of the inadequacy of their salary to their labour.

inquired whether the superannuated clerks would be forthcoming, if their services should be required in future?

stated, that in dismissing the superannuated clerks, it was understood that their services would hereafter be called for, should government deem it requisite—this he had done with a view to future economy.

moved, that the further consideration of this question be postponed for a few days, that the admiralty might have time to produce new estimates, which however was negatived. The original question was then carried without a division. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. The House adjourned at two o'clock.