again tendered to the House his fourteenth charge against lord Ellen-borough, which he had offered on Friday, but which was then rejected on the ground, that, although the charge purported to be against lord Ellen-borough, it yet went to impeach the whole court, and particularly sir Simon Le Blanc. The noble lord now stated that he trusted the charge would be found so worded as to preclude the possibility of its being supposed to implicate the other judges of the King's Bench.—The charge was then read. In referring to the conduct of sir Simon Le Blanc, it stated him as having taken the course he did in consequence of the misrepresentations of lord Ellen-borough. On the motion for its being printed,

observed, that this paper still involved a charge against sir Simon Le Blanc, of a nature extremely serious, and one to which the House would, on serious deliberation, he was sure, feel very little disposition to give their sanction. The constitution gave the noble lord the power to take the course he had done, with reference to the chief-justice, but the House would surely not give their countenance to a charge against another learned judge, who did not seem to be implicated in the supposed criminality of this case, being printed and circulated for two or three months, without any opportunity being afforded of answering it. If, as the noble lord stated, sir Simon Le Blanc had acted under misrepresentation, then, surely there was no necessity for including his name in the charge, as from the original misrepresentation, if any had taken place, all the evil arose, and he only who had made the misrepresentation became liable. He trusted, at all events, that the noble lord would suffer the charge to lay on the table for a few days, till the House had an opportunity of considering it, before they ordered it to be printed,

said, it was perfectly impossible for him, however he might desire it, to abstain from introducing the name of Mr. Justice Le Blanc—and for this reason: that learned judge was the person, who, acting under the mistatement of the chief justice, had made the misrepresentations he complained of. He felt no unwillingness whatever to let the charge lie on the table, that those gentlemen, who felt themselves interested in the case, might have a fair opportunity of examining it, and afterwards of deciding whether it should be printed or not. His motive in wishing it to be printed now was, that, as the holidays were near, gentlemen might be enabled to make themselves masters of the entire question. He again assured the House, that though he felt it impossible to state the charge of misrepresentation against the chief justice, without naming Mr. Justice Le Blanc, who had been made the instrument of the misrepresentation, yet he had no intention of making any complaint against that learned judge, who had proceeded on the information he had derived from another individual. It was his intention to bring the question forward very soon; and, that he had not done so before, was owing to the importance of the public business which had engaged the attention of the House, and had probably prevented gentlemen from considering the charges.

Will the noble lord agree to let the consideration of this charge stand over till Friday?

consented, and the additional charge was laid on the table, preparatory to the discussion on the propriety of printing it, which was postponed to Friday.

was anxious that the noble lord should mention the time when the charges he had preferred against the chief justice of the court of King's-bench would be taken into consideration. Did the noble lord mean to bring forward the discussion before the holidays? The articles now before the House, charged the learned judge with partiality, misrepresentation, injustice, and oppression. More serious charges could not be made against any man exercising any official functions in this country. And he submitted, when the charges were connected with a transaction that had occurred very nearly two years ago—when every fact alluded to in those charges must be known to the noble lord during that period—that he was not saying too much, when he contended, that it was incumbent on those who brought forward accusations of so grave a nature, not only affecting the noble lord who had filled the situation of chief justice of England, for twelve years, but affecting the administration of justice itself, to be prepared to have them decided promptly and speedily. Nearly a month had elapsed since the charges were laid on the table of the House, and he had waited from day to day, in anxious expectation that the noble lord would introduce some motion, connected with them. It was a debt of justice that he should do so. Because however innocent the learned judge might feel himself, yet the suspense in which he was kept, by having a series of heavy charges hanging over his head, undecided, must necessarily affect his mind very considerably. It was holding him out to the country as a judge, upon whom serious imputations were thrown—

rose to order. There was no question before the House, therefore, he presumed the learned gentleman had no right to make a speech. He (lord Cochrane) had carefully abstained from uttering any thing that was likely to precipitate a discussion on this subject. His desire was to have introduced the question long before, but it was not in his power to do so. When he came down to the House last session, to give notice of a motion on the subject, he was forcibly dragged from within the walls. When he was afterwards liberated from confinement, he felt that, had he proceeded immediately, he would have been accused of acting from hasty and passionate motives. He did not, therefore, think it right to bring on the discussion then. If delay had taken place in the present session, his majesty's ministers, who had prorogued parliament to such an unusually late period were to blame. Since the House had met, in consequence of the great variety of public business, no convenient opportunity occurred for introducing a discussion on this question.

knew, that, though there was no question now before the House, yet a question might be raised, by moving to have the charges taken into immediate consideration; but, although he was desirous that the question should be decided as soon as possible, he had no wish to take the management of it out of the hands of the noble lord.

spoke to order. The learned gentleman rose to ask a question, which certainly turned out to be a very long one. The noble lord had called him to order—but he had again got up, and proceeded with his speech. This was undoubtedly against the rules of the House [Cries of Chair, chair!].

Unless the learned member means to conclude with a motion, he certainly has no right to proceed further.

I am not prepared, at this moment, to go into the question, so as to submit a motion to the House. My question is, when does the noble lord mean to found any motion on these charges?

The charges require the particular consideration of this House, and the public business has been of so much importance, as, I believe, to prevent gentlemen from attending to them. I hope they will, however, during the recess, examine the charges. By this means they will be fully prepared to enter into the question when it comes before the House.

rose to ask a question of the chancellor of the exchequer, the importance of which the House must generally feel. The greatest anxiety was felt throughout the country, respecting the decision, still pending, on the subject of the war Malt Tax. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would condescend to inform the House, in what manner he meant to dispense with the tax on malt, so as to prevent the stagnation of trade? What drawback did he mean to allow, in order to encourage the brewers to proceed? If he had come to a decision on this point, he should be glad to hear it.

was not aware that he could state any additional circumstances beyond what he had laid before the House. A bill was in preparation on the subject, which would shortly be submitted to their consideration. Whatever information he could give, he was very ready to communicate. The malt tax bill, as the House must be aware, would expire on the 5th of July next. Now, in order to prevent the inconveniences which would arise to malt dealers, in consequence of the present stock on hand not being purchased, he thought they would be, in equity, entitled to the repayment of the duties which had been charged to them, for the malt they might have in their possession after the 5th of July. To obviate the mischief which a stagnation of the breweries would occasion, it was intended that the new malt bill should contain a clause, to encourage the brewers to go on with their business at present, under the inspection of public officers; whatever stock remained on hands, after the 5th of July, they were to be allowed a fair drawback for. Provision would be made in the bill, for an arrangement to enable the public brewers to go on, from this time, until the 5th of July next; whatever proportion of the beer, thus brewed, remaining unsold on the 5th of July, would be entitled to a drawback.

did not suppose the right hon. gentleman meant to deceive the House by the statement he had made, but he certainly appeared to have deceived himself. He said, it was his intention to allow to the brewer a certain proportion of the war malt duty, for any stock which might remain on hand, in consequence of his brewing from the time the new malt bill was passed, till the 5th of July. This, of course, was meant to prevent the business of the breweries from stagnating. But how did the right hon. gentleman propose to do this? He said to the brewers, "Go on as fast as you can, and, should any stock remain on hand, I will allow you a portion of the duty—but, if you remain as you are, although you may now have a great stock on hand, I will give you no drawback." This was the fact: and he would leave the right hon. gentleman to judge between the brewer and the public, how the former could proceed in his business, when, he knew the price would be greatly depreciated before the 5th of July, if a very large allowance were not made?

said, that as to the proportion of the duty to be allowed, that would be a matter of regulation when he proposed the bill to the House. They must, at least, in some degree, be guarded on the subject; and he wished to prevent any individual from being deceived or led astray, by what casually fell from him on the subject. He was sure the question would be entered into with a due degree of liberality, when it was brought regularly forward. As to any allowance to be made for beer already on hand, and which might remain on hand on the 5th of July next, he conceived there was no difficulty in providing for that branch of the subject.

expressed a hope, that provision would be made, for exempting from taxation, the beer brewed by farmers for the consumption of their labourers during the harvest.

observed, that the notice of a motion of the right hon. baronet opposite, which stood for Thursday next, was couched, generally, as a motion respecting the affairs of Ireland. He wished to know, whether the right hon. baronet intended to bring the motion forward on that day, and also what was its specific nature?

said, he would answer the interrogatories of the right hon. gentleman, as far as he could—always, however, reserving to himself the right of making any subsequent alteration, in the period of bringing on, or in the object of his motion, which circumstances might require. He certainly did intend to call the attention of the House, on Thursday next, to the affairs of Ireland. His proposition would be moulded into the form of an address, stating the surprise which the House felt at the alleged necessity of voting 25,000 men to preserve the domestic tranquillity of Ireland, no notice having been taken of the disturbed state of that country in the speech delivered from the throne at the commencement of the session; and secondly, it would call on the ministers of the Crown to lay a detailed statement before the House of the reasons that induced them to call for such an establishment, and the facts on which those reasons were founded. It would likewise call on ministers to point out the mode by which they intended to do away those evils, the temporary existence of which was assigned, originally, for the keeping on foot, for a time, so large a force. This was a general outline of the proposition he meant to submit to the House.

presented a petition from captain W. Layman, which set forth, that the petitioner, after a variety of experiments, had discovered a mode by which forest trees might be rendered fit for immediate use, in ship-building, without waste of timber, or being afterwards liable to the dry rot. This discovery, the petitioner stated, he had laid before the lords of the admiralty, but they had not examined him relative to it. He had afterwards made some experiments before the board of agriculture, which were attended with complete success. Mr. Forbes observed, that the hon. member for Stockbridge (Mr. Barham) was present when those experiments were made. He trusted he would state them to the House, and thus show the very great importance of the discovery that had been made. The prayer of the petition was, That a select committee may be appointed to take into consideration the discovery made by the petitioner.

observed, that an accusation having been made against the lords of the admiralty, for not paying attention to the discovery of the petitioner, he wished to say a few words on that point. The board of admiralty had at least a hundred applications of the same kind, but as none of the plans appeared likely to effect the object, that of preventing the dry rot, they had not been minutely attended to. No person would be more glad than him-self to find that an effectual remedy for the dry rot had been devised; but, from the various plans which had been laid before them, and which had failed, the lords of the admiralty thought it unnecessary to enter into an examination of the plan-mentioned in the petition.

said, about four years ago the petitioner informed him, he had made a great discovery in prolonging the duration of timber, and adding to its strength. He advised the petitioner to go to the admiralty, and to state his discovery there. This he declined, observing, that he had already made several applications to the admiralty, desiring that the discovery might be examined, but that they appeared to have a pique against him, and received him in such a manner as no gentleman could bear. To this he answered, that, even if the lords of the admiralty had a pique against him, they ought to consider his discovery, without any regard to the person by whom it was introduced. The petitioner then asked what he was to do, and observed that he could fully prove the utility of his discovery. He advised him to get the fact of the usefulness of his discovery verified by some other body, so as to render it impossible for the board of admiralty to deny examining the truth of his statement; and he pointed out the board of agriculture as a very fit body for that purpose. Before that board the petitioner exhibited a number of experiments, at which he was present, and they were all perfectly successful. To the great satisfaction of a very numerous meeting, the art of the petitioner certainly did produce very extraordinary effects. A piece of timber, prepared by the board of agriculture, from the worst part of the oak, was, by the petitioner's process made stouter than the heart of oak. A piece of oak was also cut in two, one part of which was retained by the board, and the other given to the petitioner. By his process, the piece remaining with him was made to carry twice the weight which the other portion would bear. These experiments he had himself seen, and he felt it necessary to mention them to the House.

trusted the statement of the hon. member would be satisfactory to the House. The gallant admiral had observed, that this was one of the hundred discoveries that had been made for preparing timber, and for curing the dry rot; but that so many had failed, as rendered it unnecessary for the admiralty to consider this. He supposed the gallant admiral was aware of the secret of the petitioner, and had therefore not considered it proper to give his discovery a trial. If that were the case, certainly it was not an unfair proceeding. He hoped, however, that the House would grant the prayer of the petition, and appoint a select committee to inquire into a subject of such great national importance.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

said, he had given notice, on a former night, of his intention to move for a reduction of those salaries, and, in conformity with that notice, he now rose, He conceived that a salary of 4,000l per annum was too much for the treasurer of the navy. The salary of the paymaster of the army was short of 2,000l and he could see no reason why the treasurer of the navy should receive more. It was an office of by no means a laborious description. He was informed, that all the duties connected with it did not occupy the attention of the individual filling the situation for more than one hour in the day. He begged to call the attention of the House to the distressed state of the country. In consequence of that distress, the Prince Regent, his ministers, and that House, had pledged themselves to a course of rigid economy. In consequence of the voice of those who surrounded him, the noble lord (Castlereagh) had been compelled to withdraw the most extravagant estimates that were ever laid before parliament, for the purpose of contracting them; and he hoped that parliament, if it appeared that they were not sufficiently narrowed, would not cease to exert its power until a proper reduction had taken place. He could not conceive why, in a time of peace, the civil departments connected with the army and navy should be paid at a war-rate. A number of clerks and persons whose salaries were trifling had been lopped off. But, if the people asked, "Will you lessen the emoluments of those who receive immense sums from the public?" and the House answered, "No;" then they would conclude, very justly, that there was no sincerity in their professions of economy which had excited so much public expectation. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That the salary of the treasurer of the navy be reduced from 4,000l. to 2,000l per annum."

thanked the hon. gentleman for the fair and candid manner in which he had introduced his proposition, and pledged himself to pursue a similar line of conduct. He did not mean to say, that his own labours, or those of any other man, were worth the sum now stated in the navy estimates; but he should be extremely sorry, after the office had been established in the way it was, to let the subject pass by unnoticed. At the time of the Revolution the salary of the treasurer of the navy was 2,000l. After that period, the treasurers of the navy made great advantages by the balances of public money in their hands. It was found necessary, how-ever, to withdraw those advantages from them, and 2,000l per annum was added to the salary, by way of compensation making a total of 4,000l a year. This was paid to the different treasurers over and over again, so that there was nothing new which could induce the committee to lower the salary; and he thought there was no very good reason that the salary should be reduced to him, when it had been so long paid to others. He would not say, that the situation might not be filled at a cheaper rate. If it were set up to auction, the salary might be beat down to 50l per annum. But he could conceive no good reason for putting this mark on him, and saying, "You shall not be paid what your predecessors were in the habit of receiving." It was not natural in him to cling to the advantages of office, where any impropriety appeared to be attached to his accepting them. He felt it unpleasant to take up the time of the House with allusions to himself; but when ministers proposed to increase the salary of the secretary of the treasury from 3 to 4,000l a year, he refused the advance: holding a sinecure, as he then did, he thought it not fit to receive the proposed addition; so that he trusted the House would acquit him of any desire to cling to the emoluments of office. The hon. gentleman had said that the duties of the office were easy, and that little time was requisite for the performance of them. He was completely mistaken in this. Those duties engrossed a large portion of his time even when he was absent from London; they employed him many hours in the day, and often two hours before daylight. This might be no reason for the salary being 4,000l a year; but he wished to show that the duties of the office were not so easy. No application had ever been made by officers of the navy that was not attended to. He was persuaded the hon. gentleman acted from no motive but a sense of public duty. It was for the committee to consider whether this duty required them to follow the suggestions of the hon. gentleman; if so, he should submit with resignation to their decision.

did not know what duties the right hon. gentleman might mix up with those of his office; but men quite as well qualified as the right hon. gentleman to give the information had assured him, that they could not contrive to employ more than an hour a day in the duties of the office. For such duties, the salary he proposed would be quite sufficient. As to the argument from the loss of public balances, that might apply very well to the parties who lost them; but the right hon. gentleman had never enjoyed them. With respect to the right hon. gentleman himself, it was not this office alone that he wished to reduce; he intended to go through the whole of them. He should endeavour to reduce even offices of great public labour: the present was a sinecure, and the first that appeared on the estimate.

contended, that the office was no sinecure, and his deputy, if called on, would state how many hours were daily employed in the duties of it. To be sure, the whole number of hours he had stated might not be occupied in the precise duties of this one department, but they were occupied in public business, and the office was any thing but a sinecure.

observed, that, according to the rule of the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment, the treasurer of the navy did not hold an office, the emoluments of which ought to be reduced. The hon. gentleman's economical reform was directed against those places which, from late changes, had become more lucrative: but he did not seem to be aware that the office in question was so far from coming within its scope, that instead of becoming more lucrative, it was actually reduced. The balances of the public money held by the treasurer of the navy, when his salary was only 2,000l were a source of incomparably greater income than the addition of 2,000l., making up its present amount. It might appear that this office was extravagantly paid in former times, and he might scarcely gain credence when he stated its emoluments so high as it was known they frequently were. They amounted annually on some occasions to 40,000l or 50,000l. The present salary of 4,000l a year, therefore, was a great reduction. But leaving out of view the history of the office in question, the present income that it yielded would not appear too high, when compared with the duties which it imposed, and the responsibility with which it was connected. It was by all means desirable that a situation of such trust should be filled by an individual of high character, of great integrity and respectability. The time and the labour of such an individual required liberal payment; but if, from motives of ill-judged parsimony, the salary was so reduced as to offer only inducements to a lower description of persons to accept it, the public, he was persuaded, would not be gainers, nor would the house have reason to applaud its economy.

urged the necessity of economy and retrenchment in all the offices and departments of government. The price of grain and the produce of land had fallen, and the nation could not afford, to pay out of a diminished income increased salaries. High expenses could only be defrayed out of great resources; and to suppose that the impoverished state of the country could yield increased emoluments to public servants, placemen, and pensioners, was little else than insanity. When the farmer could scarcely find a market for his grain, and, when he did sell it, was obliged to take a diminished price—when the landlord either got no rent, or a reduced one—was it to be imagined that they could afford the same nominal sums of money to be squandered on extravagant establishments, or unnecessary offices? Ministers appeared to him to be pursuing a mad career. The hon. gentleman was proceeding with a description of the state of distress to which the country was reduced, and the necessity of alleviating its burthens, when

rose to order. The question before the committee was concerning the navy estimates; the hon. gentleman, therefore, was travelling into extraneous matter.

contended that, in pressing the necessity of retrenchment, from the consideration of the general distress under which the country was labouring, and applying the result of his reasonings to the individual office which was the object of the present discussion, he was strictly in order. He accordingly proceeded with some further observations on the same subject, which he said he was sorry he had not taken an opportunity of making earlier, and which could never be too frequently repeated.

said a few words in defence of the salary of the treasurer of the navy, as it at present existed, and against the proposed reduction.

stated, that the clerks in the navy pay office were not so closely employed as some persons might imagine. When a sailor inquired at that office, on the subject of prize-money, he was, after a certain period, referred to Greenwich Hospital.

said, there was such a press of business in that office at the present moment, that two new clerks were called for, although the request had not been complied with. All questions with respect to prize-money were answered in the most correct manner that circumstances would permit.

said, that neither the commissioners of the board of inquiry, nor the committee of revision, had re commended a reduction of the salary of the treasurer of the navy.

said, the whole of the salaries ought to be brought down to a level with the present scale of prices. The inability of the people to pay those that were demanded was the best reason for pursuing the course he recommended.

objected to the circumstance of the salaries of several of the clerks being raised at this particular moment.

reminded the hon. baronet that the clerks had received an increase of salary, not on account of the circumstances of the present moment, but according to a rate that was to be permanent, and that brought their emoluments into a correspondence with their periods of service. The number of clerks had been diminished, but it would not have been fair to have disappointed the trust of those who were retained, and who had undergone a laborious and long-continued service on the faith of a system that admitted of a gradual rise.

did not see the necessity of following the rate mentioned by the hon. baronet.

professed himself always inclined to follow plans of retrenchment and economy, when it could be done consistently with the proper performance of the public business. He had saved the places of three clerks; and by the regularity introduced into his office, he had his accounts made up as early as called for. When he last returned from the country, be found an office of 500l a year vacant, and he did not fill it, though it was in his power, because he conceived it to be useless. He had abolished several unnecessary places, but never in the whole course of his official life had he created one. He had lately ordered a list to be made out, by those in the department with which he was connected, of all places that might be spared without any detriment to the public service, and he would proceed upon it when he received it.

was of opinion, that however proper it might be at other times, and in other circumstances, to vote additions to salaries, the present distresses of the country pointed out the impropriety of proposing such measures now. The sum of 1500l might appear a small saving, if taken from the clerks in a government office, and when compared with the immense expenditure of the country; but it should be recollected, that economy in small matters would produce important results amid the numerous departments of expenditure that existed in a great nation. We must proceed item by item, and save all that we could, if we wished to reduce the public burthens as we ought. The hon. member thought, that though the salary of the treasurer of the navy did not appear extravagant, if considered as the only resource of the individual that held it, and compared with the duties which it imposed, yet that, in consideration of the emoluments of its present possessor, from other sources, and the distresses of the country, it should be reduced to 2,000l.

said, that the salaries of the clerks in the office to which he belonged, began as low as could be imagined. This circumstance rendered the hardship of refusing the expected rise from the established scale or rate of increase still more severe. He gave the clerks upon their entrance only 78l a year, and after a service of ten years their emoluments did not exceed 90l annually. They increased at so slow a rate, that the person who had been longest in the office received a salary of only 750l after a service of forty years, though he was considered, in addition to his length of duty, to have incurred such responsibility, that he was obliged to find security for 8,000l. He would ask the hon. member for Southwark, if he could employ his clerks at the same rate; or if he could find persons of decent character and requisite education to perform his business for the sums paid to the younger clerks of the navy offices? Livery servants were sometimes paid as highly as the individuals in question, although their qualifications must be considerable, and their situation in society respectable.

was too well convinced that the worst economy was to give a poor remuneration for the discharge of effective duties, to think of enforcing such a principle now; but that was not what was required of the government. The right hon. gentleman had stated that the lowest salary in his department was 78l a year, and that several years elapsed before it became 90l. Now, upon examining that division of the estimates, he could see no salary so low as 78l. In the treasurer's department of the navy office, the salaries were from 500l. down to 140l a year, at the lowest. In the pay office, there were none under 140l. In the navy office, the lowest were 90l. In fact, among 200 clerks in those departments, he could find none under 90l. This was certainly a contradiction of the right hon. gentleman's statement of the reduced scale.

explained, by saying that he alluded to the extra clerks who were in the regular course of promotion. Under this name they generally entered the office.

did not think the salaries were too considerable. He was certain no man ought to get a smaller salary than that laid down in the present average, for no man could live at a more reduced one. For this reason he would vote for the estimates.

was of opinion that the clerks were not overpaid, or that any reduction could be made in their salaries without producing distress, or leading to injustice. The treasurer of the navy, being in a different situation, could afford, without positive suffering, to set the example of reduction to the occupants of other affluent places. He gave great credit to the right hon. gentleman for the manner in which he performed his official duties, and the attentive regard he showed to the interests and the feelings of those with whom they brought him in contact. He could not praise too highly the prompt attention that he showed to all applications, the civil manner in which he conveyed his answer, his kind and conciliating interference in behalf of the poor and the distressed, and his ready compliance with their petitions. Several instances of this condescending and friendly disposition had come under his own notice, and he was aware that they were so multiplied as to constitute his general and acknowledged character; but he would suggest to the right hon. gentleman, that he had filled several lucrative offices, that he was now grown old in place, and that, though he had discharged his duties well, he had still in his power to add to his character by a slight sacrifice. It would give great satisfaction to the House—it would do a great deal of good—it would add much to the esteem with which the nation would regard him—if he would now voluntarily rise in his place, and prevent any further discussion on the subject of his salary, by declaring that, from a consideration of the distresses of the country, and in pursuance of the example of the secretaries of the admiralty, he freely consented to reduce his emoluments at least 1,000l a year. No conduct could be more praiseworthy—none could lead to more useful results. The example that such generosity would set would be followed; and the country would be satisfied that economy had reached the hearts and the offices of ministers. The right hon. gentleman would receive the applauses of his contemporaries, and his name would be handed down to posterity as an instance of ardent patriotism and self-denying virtue [Hear, hear!].

returned thanks to the hon. member for the tribute he had paid his character, and begged at the same time to assure him, that he would feel a disposition to take advantage of his recommendation, had he not on a former occasion, when he held two places, proposed and effected a reduction of 1,000l a year in one of them. His experience on that occasion was, however, too discouraging to induce him to repeat it, for no body then followed his example—[Much laughter]. He was afraid the precedent would be equally inoperative on the present occasion.

bore testimony to the great merits of the treasurer of the navy, who had not confined himself to the sphere of his immediate duties, but had extended his services to the navy prize office, where he had effected regulations that it would be well to see adopted in the same branch of the military service. Indeed his office, in comparison with others, was but poorly remunerated.

assured the hon. member who had last spoken, that he was mistaken in supposing that the army prize department was not attended to as it ought, for he himself had introduced several acts for the improvement of that branch of the public service, and had saved at least half a million of money to the nation by those ameliorations. The hon. member might be assured that a great deal had been done in this respect, and he (Mr. Long) would be ready and thankful to receive any further suggestions on this point.

explained, that much, he was sure, had been done in the right hon. gentleman's department—all he meant to convey was, that the army prize money was not placed upon as good a footing as that of the navy.

observed, that the salary of his right hon. friend was fixed at 4,000l a year, not solely for the labour which was confessedly annexed to it, but for the importance of the particular trust. This salary had been fixed for more than thirty years. Antecedent to that period the office was paid in a variety of ways, and it sometimes, in time of war, produced 40,000l a year. They should recollect the important conditions under which the office was held. Its possessor was a public accountant all his life, until he got his quietus from those who were placed over him as auditors; until he obtained their complete receipts, he dared not make a transfer of one shilling of his real property. So that the individual was not only paid for his labour, but also for his responsibility. As to the difference alluded to between navy and army prize-money, it should be considered that there were many prize agents for the former, and but few for the latter; besides, the army prize was a far more unfrequent occurrence.

strongly recommended the right hon. gentleman opposite to accept the recommendation given him to come forward with a reduction of his salary. He would by so doing erect a monument to his memory, that would out-last the Waterloo trophy. He was the oldest man on the treasury bench, and his example, thus arising out of a deep sense of public duty, could not but be felt by his colleagues. Really he ought to do so at a time, when one-fifth of the population were actually panting for subsistence.

did not think that the salary having been fixed thirty years ago, materially altered the case.

said, that although the times were very unfit for the introduction of new or increased salaries, yet, with regard to the old ones, he was extremely unwilling to say that the times were so hard as to require an innovation in the stipends of those established thirty years ago, particularly where no complaints for so long a period had been made, or any inefficiency alleged. He would say nothing of the individual who filled the office, but merely speak of the office it-self. In the salaries of thirty years date he would acquiesce, but he hoped the committee would concur with him in thinking that this was a very unfit moment to put any office upon a new footing.

did not think the salaries of clerks were, on an average, too much.

reminded the committee, that the question was not, whether the clerks should be reduced from 150l. to 130l., but whether the treasurer of the navy should in time of peace have 2,000l. instead of 4,000l a year.

repeated, that be saw no reason for altering a stipend of thirty years duration.

was of the same opinion.

The House then divided on Mr. Bennet's amendment,"That the salary of the treasurer of the navy should be 2,000l a year, instead of 4,000l.: when the numbers were—

The amendment was consequently negatived.

complained of the hardships to which seamen were on foreign stations exposed, by their pay being withheld until their return to a home station. He said, that his brother officers concurred with him in pronouncing this to be a very heavy grievance. Seamen were, by this regulation, often for six, eight, and ten years, without receiving pay, and were, therefore, deprived of the means of purchasing such necessaries as they might want. This necessarily led them to resort to the purser for what were called slops; and they often resorted to these means, not for their immediate want of the things purchased, but to convert them, on any terms, into money for their immediate necessities. He had known a man to sell for half-a-crown, clothes for which he was charged a pound in his accounts. Surely this was a grievance. Another evil arising out of this regulation was, that the men would not enter now for foreign stations. Such a feeling among them, was, of course, detrimental to the public service. One of the reasons for excluding men on foreign stations from receiving their pay, was a very futile one—he alluded to that grounded on the facility of their desertion. Now, the contrary was, in his opinion, the fact; for, so far from preventing, it encouraged desertion, as the men were inclined to run sooner, than continue to bear the hardships to which they were exposed. He knew a man who, when brought to the table to receive fifteen years pay, had only the amount of three years coming to him, the rest having been absorbed in slop accounts on foreign stations, on which the individual had probably a loss of one-eighth or more. Now this could be easily remedied by devoting a couple of clerks, who were unoccupied in the navy pay-office, to the management of pay accounts on foreign stations, sup pose at Malta, Gibraltar, the Cape of Good Hope, Jamaica, and Antigua. The establishment could be managed on ship board by the purser, the captain, and his clerk; instead of the men receiving their pay in divisions of six months annually, let it be given them in three months; that is, only one half what they would be entitled to on a home station. He assured the committee that the want of such a regulation was a severe grievance; he would, however, establish the fact beyond the possibility of doubt, as he had done in the recent case of widows pensions, and if it appeared to the House that the navy were an aggrieved service, they would, doubtless redress the evil. He thought he had made out a primâ facie case, which neither Moses nor the Prophets could controvert [A laugh], [The hon. member was here understood to allude to a phrase of sir Joseph Yorke's, on a former night]. Captain Pellew said, he was no party man; the gentlemen who were in the habit of supporting government knew this very well, and that he mostly concurred with them. They would, therefore, he trusted, give him a patient hearing. The proposition for the payment of the service on foreign stations might doubtless receive amendment; but he entreated they would give to it their most serious consideration.

said, that the hon. captain's observations as to the difficulty of procuring men for foreign stations, were not borne out by the fact, for our ships for that service had all been got ready with rapidity. The Indian ships were all gone, so were the Mediterranean, the Brazils, and the St. Helena. The Halifax and West India probably wanted a few hands; but, generally speaking, the whole complement of the foreign service was complete, except a few hundreds, and so far from there being a difficulty to get men for foreign service, he was assured by captains who were actually engaged in fitting out, that the men preferred going abroad to any other station. It was the delight of a sailor to get his money in a heap, and this was the way to gratify that propensity. On the subject of slops, he had never seen any thing like that which the hon. captain had described, and the hon. member, as an officer, must know, that no man could receive more than a certain quantity of slops in a month—how then twelve or thirteen years of his pay could be swallowed up in the manner alluded to, was to him a mystery. He therefore saw no necessity for adopting the suggestion which had been thrown out. For his own part, he never saw an aversion among the men for foreign service. During the last war, when he was going abroad, on joining his ship in the river, he found the deck crowded with persons anxious to be taken aboard. He understood from the port admiral and others, that a similar feeling still prevailed.

accounted for the facility which the admiral said was manifested in fitting out the foreign ships at present, by the eagerness that the admiralty were known to have in getting those ships off. The admiralty sent men down on purpose. Booths were opened at Chatham for foreign stations, but none for home ones. As to the want of men at present, he could, notwithstanding what the hon. admiral had said, state, that the Orontes, capt. Cochrane, for the St. Helena station, was still in want of men: the Leander had been for months fitting up at Woolwich, without being able to get any thing like her number. He had spoken to his superiors and inferiors in the service, and they all concurred in opinion on that point. The hon. admiral had said, that a seaman could only receive a certain portion of slops monthly. He knew this very well; but he also knew, they could draw in that month more than they required for their own use, and that they got them for the purpose of converting them into cash. When he commanded a frigate in India, he found it impossible, from the necessities of the men, in consequence of their not receiving their pay, to prevent them from spending it by anticipation in debts of this kind. The men were obliged to do so, to get soap and other articles of pressing necessity.

said, that the admiralty had certainly appointed a rendezvous for foreign stations, but they had not held out any superior inducement; the men might enter for whatever service they pleased; but his information from Cork, Bristol, Liverpool, &c. where the receiving ships were stationed, did not mention any difficulty in procuring men. There was not half the difficulty on this point, at present, that existed after the American war. The hon. captain was in error when he mentioned the Leander as incomplete. The Orontes, so far from being in want of hands, had only a deficiency of about ten men. There were only three or four in the river in a similar state.

congratulated the House on the statement of his gallant friend (captain Pellew), whose example he hoped would be followed by the other naval officers in that House. He had himself for more than twenty years witnessed the distresses of seamen in India. The men had repeatedly applied to him for relief, and so had their officers. He had often heard the officers say, that they were obliged to flog men who had gone ashore, and sold every stitch off their backs to raise money. Some men were, to his knowledge, ten years without receiving any pay [Some coughing here took place]. Having but just escaped from a cold he could sympathise with the gentlemen below the bar who appeared to labour under a similar indisposition; he would not, however, be deterred from complaining of the grievances of the navy, and reasserting them, although they were contradicted in that House. They might as well tell him black was white, as that the navy were satisfied with the treatment they received. They neither were, nor had they a right to be satisfied. Relief ought to be given to that meritorious body; and he predicted the time would come when it must be given. In calling the attention of government to this point, he had no personal feeling or interest to gratify, entertaining as good wishes for the army as he did for the navy. The suggestion for foreign payment appeared to him a wise and just measure. The officers (who had the privilege of drawing bills) lost one-fourth by exchange, &c. Some of them had entered his counting-house in India so destitute that their toes were almost through their shoes, and the bills they offered to negociate completely tattered after being carried about until they were nearly worn out; they had offered them at a loss of 20, 25, and sometimes 30 per cent. discount. He had often taken them at the ordinary rate of exchange, until, at length, the frequency of the applications compelled him to desist from the accommodation. His hon. friend opposite (Mr. Alexander), who had been in India a great friend to the navy, and many other gentlemen who heard him, could corroborate the grievance of which he complained. It was right to state those facts. He would always do so, until he found that the grievances of this gallant set of men were properly redressed.

bore testimony to the truth of the statements of the gallant captain. He had himself sufficient experience of those facts. In 1805, when he was appointed to a command in India, he knew one man, who, on his arrival at Spithead from a foreign station, had 300l due to him. Was it right that such a balance should be due to any seaman? The information of the hon. admiral must doubtless be the best, relative to the facility of manning vessels for foreign stations, but he had heard quite the reverse on this point; indeed, his information was only from captains, who were themselves trying to fit out, and who said they could only get wasters and artificers.

had his information from no less authority than admirals Duckworth, Malcolm, and others, who were actually on service. This was authority which, he supposed, the hon. capt. would not dispute.

said, that the late lord Melville, to whom the navy were so much indebted, had contemplated the payment of men on foreign stations; but he found so many difficulties to interfere with this intention, that he was obliged to relinquish it. He had, however, effected for the officers the privilege of drawing bills; and the men, while on foreign stations, were also allowed to have a proportion of their pay set apart for the use of their families at home. The hon. capt. talked of sparing two clerks at the pay office (a place in which he probably never set his foot) although not one could in reality be found there—even if they could, it would not answer without corresponding establishments on the several stations abroad.

repeated his former opinions, and expressed his determination on every occasion to introduce this subject; not indeed with a view of either opposing or embarrassing the government, but for the purpose of raising it in the estimation of the public, by impressing upon it the necessity of redressing a heavy evil.

saw no reason why seamen serving on foreign stations should not have their money advanced to them. The late lord Melville rendered a considerable service to the navy, in permitting them to draw part of their pay. This, however, was not so considerable an advantage as was enjoyed by the army, who were paid in full wherever they were, and without any disadvantage arising from the variation of exchange. When he was in the Mediterranean, he knew that lieutenants in the navy drawing for 20l received only 14l. or 15l. He hoped that the navy would, with respect to this, be put on the same footing with the army.

stated, that he had made inquiries as to the several rates of exchange at which officers on foreign service had cashed their bills, and generally they appeared very favourable to the navy. If, therefore, the suggestion of the hon. member were adopted, it would be attended by a certain loss to the officers. In the years 1810 and 1811, in which the rate of exchange was most unfavourable to this country, it appeared from a return then made out, that in the Mediterranean and in the Tagus the exchange was unfavourable, but that on every other station, the rate was either at par, or in our favour. The committee, however, must be aware, that the facility of cashing bills must frequently depend on the characters of the individual officers who drew them.

heard the hon. secretary with extreme surprise, when he stated that the exchange had, in the years 1810 and 1811, been favourable to our officers. The fact he knew to be the contrary, and that it was a source of great distress to the service.

observed, that he could not naturally be expected to know with accuracy the rates of exchange, but the statement he had just made to the House was drawn from a paper prepared in the year 1811, and which represented the exchange as favourable in the Leeward islands, Madras, and Bombay; at par, in Malta and Rio Janeiro; but unfavourable at Gibraltar, Halifax, and Antigua.

conceived the hon. secretary to have totally mistaken the facts, for unless officers were enabled to draw differently from merchants, he was very confident that they must have found the rate of exchange considerably against them. In India, indeed, the exchange did not follow the depreciation of our currency so rapidly as in other countries, but that depreciation had generally produced an effect on the rate of exchange from 15 to 25 per cent. In consequence of the nature of our paper currency, the rate of exchange depended wholly on the circumstance of peace or war; so that immediately on a recurrence to hostilities, the main difficulties would again arise. When the country has established a certain pay for the officers and seamen of our navy, it was but proper that they should receive the entire of it.

observed, that the favourable rate of exchange in India was occasioned by certain financial measures of the India Company, who by a kind of juggle tricked the public creditors out of the facility usually enjoyed for transmitting their property. The hon. member proceeded to explain this point, but the impatience of the House prevented us from collecting it with accuracy.

remarked, that in the large sum for contingencies there were 1,704l for messengers, watchmen, porters, and fire-lighters in the navy office: messengers appeared to him in the rank of domestics, and he complained that they should receive salaries to the amount of 240l a-year, which exceeded those of the inferior clerks, who were obliged to support the appearance of gentlemen. It had been the opinion of a committee of that House, that 100l a-year would be sufficient for the messengers.

replied, that the messengers did not receive so high a salary as the hon. member imagined.

remarked, that as the sum was stated in the aggregate, he was unable to ascertain the salary of each individual; but seeing that the messengers in some of the other offices received salaries as high as 240l a-year, he thought it probable that those in the navy office were not less favoured.

assured the hon. member, that no messenger in his office had more than 120l a-year.

remarked, that the head messengers of the admiralty and navy office should not be considered in the character of menials, or mere, domestics. They filled offices of considerable responsibility, and had important duties assigned to them.

expressed a wish to hear some further explanation from the hon. secretary of the admiralty, respecting the rate of exchange during the four or five last years. Was the House to understand that while the exchange was notoriously against this country—while it was become a matter of historic record, and had been frequently stated to the House on the bullion question, as an incontrovertible position—was the House to understand that, not-withstanding that delusion then practised on the House and the public, there were in reality only one or two points of the compass in which the exchange was really unfavourable? He wished to know whether the secretary of the admiralty would persist in such an assertion, and whether he would rest his character for accuracy on that statement?

thought it his duty to state, that having been in the Mediterranean during the years 1809 and 1810, he had heard the officers constantly complain of the severity with which the unfavourable rate of exchange pressed on them.

requested the House to remember, that he had distinctly stated, that in the Mediterranean and the Tagus, the rate of exchange had been unfavourable. His information, as he before stated, was drawn from a paper, prepared in 1811, and which he begged leave again to read. The paper stated generally, that the exchange was favourable in Jamaica, the Leeward islands, Madras and Bombay; nearly at par, in Malta and Rio Janeiro; but unfavourable in the Mediterranean, the Tagus, Gibraltar, Halifax and, Antigua.

observed, that it must be evident to the committee that the facts were only derived from the paper his hon. friend had read, and not from his own knowledge. If the results were not correct, the navy-office was responsible. There was no doubt that the low rate of exchange was felt as a great hardship in the Mediterranean at the period alluded to, because there was then a fleet of 36 sail on that station. In fact, it was the principal station for our fleet at that period. At present, however, the exchanges were favourable, and this mode of receiving their pay could not now amount to a grievance on officers of the navy. When circumstances should again occur calling the attention of the House to the question, it would be proper for the House to consider what course to pursue.

expressed his surprise at the statement which he had heard of the exchange with Malta being at par in 1810. He should beg the hon. secretary to read that part of the paper which gave the exchanges with Malta. This having been done, Mr. Baring said he drew from it the conclusion, that the exchanges with Malta made a difference in the proportion of 54 to 67 to the disadvantage of the officers of the navy; so that there was in fact a loss to them of 20 per cent. on their pay. It was quite evident that the official persons about the admiralty knew nothing at all of the nature of foreign exchanges.,

wished to state the principle on which the difference in the mode of paying officers of the navy was founded. Formerly it had been the constant practice to pay the navy only at home. It was only of late years that the officers were authorized to draw their pay while on foreign stations, and they did so at their own risk of loss, if the exchange was unfavourable, while they gained if it was favourable. On the other hand, in the case of the army, if the exchanges were favourable, the public derived the advantage, and not the officer. There was no intention of undue preference to the army; but the whole had merely arisen from the different modes of payment that had long subsisted.

remarked, that the hardship arose from an ever-varying currency. If the same tricks continued to be played with it, there could be no security to the officer against the greatest injustice.

said, that as soon as the Speaker took the chair, he would move for a return of the rates of exchange at which officers drew bills on foreign service, for the last five or six years, that the House might not be compelled to take the assertion of gentlemen on either side.

bore testimony that the rate of exchange had occasioned great loss to the officers of the navy, and had been felt as a hardship by them. He had himself been on stations in the Mediterranean, where the loss was 25 per cent. About a year after the time referred to by the hon. secretary, a motion had been made on the subject by capt. Bennet, who was not now a member of the House, and the same defence was set up for the practice which was now made. Captain Bennet had been then authorized by the officers of the navy to say, that they were very willing to give up any advantage which might arise from the state of the exchange at any future time, and receive their pay at par. The antiquity of the practice did not alleviate the grievance.

said, he was glad the hon. secretary intended to move for the papers, for if they proved the correctness of his statement as to the difference of the exchange at Malta and Gibraltar, they would indeed surprise all speculators on political economy.

said, that from his connexion with the island of Antigua, he had opportunities of knowing that the exchange had been unfavourable to that island, to the amount of from 8 to 15 per cent. for the last eight or ten years. He acquitted the hon. secretary of any intention to mislead the House; but he had been surprised to hear such a statement as had been made.

said, that while in the West-Indies he was in the habit of having his bills favourably received. He acknowledged, however, it was not of late years. He was sorry that the question of paying seamen while on foreign stations had been brought forward, since it tended to excite dissatisfaction. He never heard seamen express a wish to be paid abroad; they were better satisfied to enable their wives, mothers, &c. to draw a part of their pay, and to have a sum accumulated for them; on their return home. To be paid abroad would make them dissatisfied; they did not call for it. He deprecated the readiness young officers showed, to get up in that House, and make statements about the navy, creating dissentions, without having consulted with those of more experience in such subjects.

as the allusion to young officers, and creating dissentions were evidently levelled at him, deemed it his duty to repel them. He had nothing in view but the benefit of the service: so far from not having consulted with officers of more experience than himself, he had taken the opinions of many, with the exception of the gallant admiral. He never heard any naval officer who entertained a different view from himself on the question.

thought the gallant captain had forgotten himself. He had spoken to him on the subject, when he (sir J.) asked him whom he had consulted, and he answered, "Upon my honour, nobody." He (sir J.) then told him, that he was proposing to bring a thing into the House, which would receive the censure of it from one end to the other. The advice he had given him was, that the best way to benefit the service, would be to go quietly to the admiralty, and argue the case with them [A laugh].

said, he must totally disclaim many parts of the conversations alluded to. It was not the case that he had said no, when asked if he had taken the opinion of other officers. He had said that he had not applied to the admiralty; but as to his having not consulted naval officers, he had never said any thing of the kind.

was surprised at the hon. admiral's doctrine, that a member of parliament might not bring forward any motion he thought proper, without consulting a public office upon it. He also censured the opinion, that young officers ought not to bring these things forward; though he was not inclined to enter as warmly as the gallant captain had done into the subject of pay. He was not a young officer himself, having been 42 years in the service; but he did consider the remarks of young officers to be sometimes very unwise.—[The gallant admiral was proceeding when loud cries of order arose, and appeals were made to the chair.]

thought, that no possible reason had been assigned why the navy should not be paid at par as well as the army.

said, that however much the nation owed to the army, it owed still more to the navy. To say that the navy would gain at times by the state of the exchange was nugatory, for the only time when the exchange was in favour of England was in time of peace.

did not mean to say, that the officers of the navy should not be put on the same footing with those of the army. There had been this difference, however, between the two branches—that the army, or any part of it, while on service abroad, had a paymaster of their own, who stood in the place of government. It would be attended with considerable embarrassment to have a similar officer with every squadron.

said, the statement which had been read by the hon. secretary was such as no member would have ventured to make, excepting that hon. gentleman—it was so flagrantly in contradiction to all the facts which had been mentioned in the discussions of late years. The exchange had of late been 1, 2, or 3 per cent. in favour of this country, but it had been at other times 25 per cent. against it.

The question was then put on the original resolution, for the sum of 43,864l. 12s. 6d for defraying the salaries and contingencies of the navy pay office, for 1816.

hoped the committee would abstain from voting the whole of this sum, till the papers specifying the contingencies were laid before the House. He should therefore move as an amendment, that the grant be 7000l less than the sum stated, being the amount of the contingencies. On this the committee divided, when there were,

The resolution was then agreed to.

On the motion, that 49,195l. 3s. 4d be granted for the expenses of the victualling office,

objected to the charge of 400l annually for the registrar of public securities. He thought that duty might be discharged by the solicitor, as at the admiralty, or by one of the clerks, as at the navy board.

explained the nature of the office of registrar, who was appointed to inquire into the validity of the securities given by persons to the victualling board. The duties there were much more extensive than in any other of the public departments; and he could venture to assert, that the registrar would not have to investigate less than from 4 to 500 securities annually.

would venture to assert, on the other hand, that instead of 400, he would not have to investigate more than 40 new securities each year.

impressed upon the committee the necessity of this office in a department like the victualling office, to which every purser of a ship gave two securities.

hoped, if the appointment were confirmed, that it would be effectual for its object, and that no cases like that of the receiver general would occur in future. He begged to know whether, in the contracts recently made with the public boards, the clause required by act of parliament, that the person taking them should not be a member of the House of Commons, had been inserted? A short time since several members had escaped the penalty, on a discovery in chancery, in consequence of the lucky omission of that condition.

hoped with the right hon. baronet, that the securities were taken better care of than they had been in the instance to which he had referred. With respect to the contracts, he did not know whether they had contained the clause enjoined by the act or not, as this did not come within his department. He would endeavour to inform himself on the subject, and let the right hon. baronet know the result of his inquiry.

The resolution was then agreed to. On the resolution, that 33,061l. 7s be granted for Woolwich yard,

referred to the objections he had made on a former night to the continuance of the office of the commissioner at Woolwich in time of peace, at an expense of not less than 3,000l annually.

thought that the right hon. gentleman had overstated the expense of the commissioner at Woolwich, and had forgotten the period at which he was appointed: it took place in July 1806, when the right hon. gentleman was himself in office with his friends; and if the duties he had then to perform required the nomination of this commissioner, his assistance was doubly necessary at this moment, when our shipping were undergoing repair. In fact, his presence at the yards of Deptford and Woolwich was more necessary during peace than during war: he had not less than 2600 workmen to superintend, besides the care of most valuable stores for the navy. He had good reason to think that the administration of 1806 did not intend the situation of this commissioner to be merely temporary, as a minute was found in the office, for building a house for his permanent accommodation. He conceived, therefore, that he had the authority of the government of 1806 for the continuance of this appointment even in time of peace.

believed that the hon. baronet was mistaken regarding the supposed minute, as he had always understood that the commissionership was only to last during war. Since the creation of that office, another commissioner and a surveyor had been added to those at Somerset-house, who could discharge all the functions of the commissioner at Woolwich.

The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution, that 57,462l. 18s. 7d. be granted for the foreign yards,

made a remark upon the annually increasing charge upon the public on this head.

said, there was not a single foreign yard in which there was not an increase this year over the last. There was one office which was perfectly useless—he meant the surveyor-general of the woods in Nova Scotia. As for the surveyor in Canada, he was a very intelligent person, and had recently published an extremely interesting work, which was well worthy of perusal. But with respect to the surveyor at Nova Scotia, Mr. Baring said, he had been through all the provinces, and was perfectly convinced that the appointment was altogether unnecessary. The admiralty might just as well have a permanent officer of this sort in every other part of Europe.

said, that this officer, in point of fact, did reside in Nova Scotia, and was employed in selecting timber for the navy. There certainly was some addition to last year in the foreign yards, and particularly in Bermuda; but the whole of the persons were advantageously engaged.

The resolution was then agreed to.

On the motion, that the sum of 132,960l. 7s. 6d be granted for victuals to the officers and ship-keepers in ordinary, as also to officers and men borne on the hulks and small vessels, for the year 1816, at 1s. 6d per diem each,

called the attention of the committee particularly to this item, on which a decrease of 40,000l rather than an increase to that amount, might have been expected. This grant was for victualling the officers and men who had the charge of the ships laid up in ordinary. The men thus employed, were maintained in 1813, 1814, and 1815, at an expense of one shilling per diem. When things had become so much cheaper, why was the country to be called upon to pay at the rate of 1s. 6d per man. The charge was now 132,960l. 7s.6d. It ought to have been not more than 90,050l. Why Was the country to pay the difference between a shilling and eighteen-pence over what it had paid in the last three years. He knew it might easily be said, that the estimates of those years had fallen short, but if this argument were made use of, what should they think of those who had framed those estimates, and not sooner discovered their inaccuracy? In the same manner, the allowance for the men in the service of the customs had been raised by an order dated August 15th, 1815, from one shilling and five pence to one and ten pence. This increased sum had been paid to the contractor for these men who was also their commander. He thought the contractor and the commander ought never to be the same person, and he hoped the House would not give its sanction to such an arrangement, as it gave the commander an interest in the absence of his men, and tended to make him only studious how to get them to take leave of absence.

said, the present was one of, the primâ facie cases made out by the gentlemen opposite, and like those which had been already brought before the House, would soon be answered. He begged it to be understood, he was content to admit the papers which the hon. gentleman had referred to, respecting the sum paid per man in 1813 and in 1814. Whatever the grant might be which had been voted, whether it was at the rate of 1s. 9d or 1s. 10d per diem, it made no difference to his argument; his answer to it was this, that the real expense had been greater, that the estimates had been short. For a number of years it was ascertained that they had been so, and the admiralty had thought it their duty, on the present occasion, to put them right, and to bring before the House the sums which the service under consideration actually required. But the hon. gentleman had anticipated this answer: he had said that this might be urged by the admiralty, but if they held, this language in defence of their present estimates, what would they say for those of 1814 and 1815? He would tell the hon. gentleman that the error did not originate in those years, but in the year 1806. It was the arrangement then made which had led the present naval administration of the country into the mistake complained of. What had caused the government of that period to which he had referred to fall into it, the hon. gentleman would do well to inquire of his right hon. friends near him; but out of their error, that which had now been so gravely brought forward had certainly grown. In the year 1736, the sum paid for victualling the harbour duty men was at the rate of sixpence per man, and eightpence per day for each "sea-going" man, who, it was assumed, required a greater provision to be made for him than was necessary for those who remained in harbour. In the same year eight-pence farthing was allowed per man for the wear and tear of the service. From 1736 to 1798, a period of 62 years, no addition was made to the allowance for victualling the navy. In all that period on the naval estimates, there appeared no difference in the expense of their maintenance had taken place, though the House was aware a considerable difference must have arisen out of the circumstances of the times. In 1798 Mr. Pitt found the sums granted for the victualling of the seamen insufficient, and determined to correct it. Accordingly (as those gentlemen who were in the House at that period must remember) when the naval estimates of that year were brought forward, an increase on this head was proposed. The allowance was doubled, being raised from eight-pence to one shilling and four-pence halfpenny per man; the latter sum was given for the sea-going men, and one shilling for the harbour-duty men. In 1806, it was found that the arrangement made in 1798 was inadequate. It was then proved that one and four-pence halfpenny did not cover the expense of victualling the seamen; and the minister of that day came down to parliament and proposed a further augmentation of the allowance for that service, and accordingly the remuneration granted for victualling the navy was on that occasion advanced to two shillings and three-halfpence per man. But while this alteration was made, those with whom it originated forgot to increase the victualling money of the harbour-men. The sum voted for them was the same as it had previously been since the year 1798. As fixed in that year there was a fair proportion between the sum allotted for them and that granted for the sea-going men. It was absurd to vote for them the same sum as had been provided in 1798, while so large an increase had been made in favour of the sea-going men in 1806; but this, he doubted not, had been merely an over sight. An addition, therefore, to the vote for victualling them, became absolutely necessary. He accounted for the mistake committed by the admiralty of 1806, not having been found out by themselves, in this way; while the war continued, the small loss sustained from the victualling of 3,000 men out of 135,000, made it difficult of detection at that time, when they had so few ships laid up in ordinary. It was different now, when the ships laid up in ordinary were so many, and when the number of sea-going men were in proportion so greatly diminished. In consequence of this change, the deficiency in the vote for the harbour duty men, had once struck the officer whose duty it was to look into the subject, and the board of admiralty had thought it right that the House should know of the mistake. With this feeling they had directed new estimates to be made, that the merits of the case might come fairly before the House. In acting thus, they had, in point of fact, done no more than ought to have been done in 1806. He trusted he had satisfactorily shown where the mistake had arisen. He had proved the error to be of long standing as he took its date from 1806, and he thought that the committee would agree with him that the admiralty was bound to correct it when it was discovered, and that they should not be blamed now for doing that which it could be wished had been done ten years ago.

thought the explanation of the hon. gentleman satisfactory, but he was of opinion he might have offered it with a better grace a few evenings ago. He thought it would have been desirable to avoid appearing to reserve it for a coup de main, to bring it forward with that air of triumph which he had lately so much accustomed himself to assume.

begged to observe, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and he spoke in the perfect recollection of the House, that on the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, he had endeavoured to address the House on this subject, but in vain. All he had been able to gain permission to say was this, that in the committee he would give all the information in his power, and he had told the hon. gentleman he had a satisfactory answer for him, which he would give on the first opportunity.

observed, that there were others who could have given the explanation, even though the hon. secretary was precluded from speaking a second time.

said, he was willing to admit that the explanation of the hon. secretary was a satisfactory one; but stilt he thought the manner in which the matter was managed was a slovenly one. He asked a question respecting the mode of our making the government contracts.

said, that no contracts were made other than openly, and by public advertisement. They were made but for one year, and usually concluded at the fall of the year. In 1814, the contract made at Milford Haven was at the rate of twenty pence per man, that of the present year at the rate of fifteen pence halfpenny, and in both instances there had been an open competition. The contracts for the harbour duty men had been made for the month of twenty-eight days. They had been concluded on the following terms in the years specified: in 1808 at 1s. 6d and a fraction: in 1809 at 1s. 8d and a fraction: in 1810 at 1s. 11d and a fraction: in 1811 at 1s. 8d. and a fraction: in 1812 at 1s. 10d.: in 1813 at 1s. 11d.: in 1814 at near 2s.: and for the present year had been concluded at 1s. 8d.,and it was probable that the diminution of expense would in the next year, be still greater. He trusted that the hon. gentleman who had thought it necessary to call the attention of the House to "great sums" would find in the statement he had made, that these had not been neglected. Had not the subject been closely looked into, the error of ten years would not have been detected.

said, the expense of victualling the harbourmen was not so much reduced as the hon. gentleman had supposed. Though the provisions themselves were cheaper, the casks and other manufactured articles in which they were conveyed (which created a considerable charge) were not reduced in price.

The resolution was agreed to.

The next resolution was for the sum of 1,019,755l for half pay, superannuations, pensions, and allowances granted to officers in the military line of the naval service, their widows and relatives.

observed, that the army were enabled to hold situations for which the navy were not competent. In this point of view, he looked upon the navy as a very oppressed service.

said, the army half-pay oath was nearly the same as that taken by the navy; but, by the appropriation act, the navy officer swears that he has no office, while the army officer swears that he has no office except a staff appointment. An officer on half-pay of the army was quasi out of the army, and must afterwards purchase, or by some other means get his rank: he shuts the door on himself, and leaves that service altogether. In the navy, however, the half-pay was only a kind of retaining fee, it was not a retirement; and the officer was called upon to serve his country whenever he was wanted. This had a very different operation, and, consequently, the half-pay in the army and navy were alike only in name.

admitted that much had been done, but it did not follow from thence that government ought not to go further. As to the army not having the advantage of prize money, a new regulation had been adopted, on that subject far from being satisfactory to the navy. In the business at Genoa, the army officer commanding received 7000l.,while the commanding naval officer, who was senior to the general, received only 4000l.

observed, that gentlemen not in office had not the same advantages on going into details as gentlemen in office; but it did not therefore follow that they should sit down silent: he showed that a great difference existed between the widows pensions of officers in the army and those of officers in the navy; and said, that the only remedy was, to put the two services on an equal footing. He did not wish to excite discontent, and he would not therefore concur in saying that the navy was oppressed, but he would say it was not equally favoured with the army. He saw no reason why this should be the case, and he did press it on the House, that the only mode to remove every lurking discontent was to assimilate the two services.

contended, that the navy were on an equal footing with the army, on the score of half-pay and widows pensions. An officer in the navy could rise to a high rank, and derive from it a permanent half-pay, at a much earlier period in life than an officer in the army; and as to the widows pensions, the widow of the army officer, lost the interest of all the sums that had been laid out in the purchase of commissions. He adduced the instance of a gallant officer, a member of that House (captain Pellew), who had attained the rank of post-captain at a younger age by several years than he could have, according to regulations, attained the corresponding rank in the army, although he purchased every step.

thought the difference was against the navy, especially in the item of half-pay.

showed that the half-pay of the navy amounted almost to full pay.

begged to repeat the observation he had made on this subject on a former evening, and deprecated the assimilation of the army half-pay to that of the navy, which it resembled in nothing but the name. This was unwise in the advocates for the navy, and would only create discontent without producing any good effects. In the navy, half-pay was allowed according to rank: but in the army, a colonel by brevet, might receive a captain's half-pay. Then the villas in every part of the country attested what fortunes were made in the navy, while no such effects were seen from service in the army. As to the expression which an hon. member had used, that the navy were oppressed, he would only say that lord Melville, last year, promoted 1,126 midshipmen, without friends, to the rank of lieutenants.

made inquiry concerning the deductions of 2½ and 7⅛ per cent. from navy pensions.

said, that the matter would be immediately taken into consider ration.

stated, that a case on the subject was now before the law officers of the Crown; it was very lately discovered that these deductions were made from navy pensions, and not from the army: the opinion of the law officers would attach them to both or neither.

explained as to the expression of the navy being oppressed. If grievances existed, the navy was oppressed.

intimated his intention of bringing the subject of those grievances before the House, if something were not done by the admiralty.

stated, that the admiralty had been employed on the subject.

complained of the difficulty which many officers of the first rank had in gaining access to the lords of the admiralty and to the secretaries. He had received many anonymous letters on the subject, and it appeared to him that the admiralty actually carried on a complete system of terror. It was within his knowledge that many officers had attended at the admiralty to return their thanks for the promotion they had obtained, and the answer they received was, that their lord-ships could not give them an audience.

said, that with regard to the lords of the admiralty, he could not of course give any answer on the point; but as to himself, and the two gentlemen serving as secretaries to the admiralty, he could give a decided, and, he hoped, a satisfactory answer. At the horse-guards, he believed, there was but one day in the week allotted for the purpose of receiving officers; but at the admiralty, on the contrary, officers were seen by himself and the other secretaries every day in the week. He was ready to admit that there were one or two exceptions, when he (Mr. C.) was attending the board; and sometimes when officers sent up their names with a letter, the letter was answered without seeing the officer. A case like this might occur; but otherwise everyday in the week officers were admitted.

was glad that the House was at last informed of the authority on which the hon. gentleman rested his assertions. It was at least fortunate that the House could now have the best proof of the groundlessness of the charge, which he advanced confessedly upon the authority of anonymous letters. He defied the right hon. gentleman to produce a single instance in which a naval officer had been refused admission to a lord of the admiralty.

accused the hon. gentleman who had just sat down of intentional misrepresentation.

called to order: and after a mutual explanation,

animadverted with great severity upon the conduct of Mr. Forbes, in coming forward with stories of grievances which never existed, and which were now discovered to be the fabrications of malignant men. He hoped the hon. gentleman would be more cautious for the future, and wished to put him on his guard against making such statements on the information of anonymous letters. In a short time, he was afraid the hon. gentleman would be a general grievance-monger to all the naval officers.

The Resolution was agreed to. The other Resolutions were then put and carried without any opposition, and at half past two the House adjourned.