presented a petition from the freeholders of the county of Stafford, praying for the most rigorous economy and retrenchment. He said, ha had been prevented from being present at the meeting, but he understood it was most numerously attended, and that the petition was most respectably signed. The persons who signed it were actuated by no party motives, but merely by that common feeling, which now animated the whole country, from one end to the other, and which so loudly called for retrenchment. He was anxious to add, that he perfectly concurred in the prayer of the petition, and he hoped his majesty's ministers would go on in the course they had so auspiciously begun, of enforcing the most rigid economy in every department of the public expenditure.

could not refrain from paying a tribute of approbation to the moderate language of the petition, which, however, was only such as might be expected from the highly respectable and perfectly independent characters who had signed it. He congratulated the House on the good effect which had resulted from such petitions; and he must do ministers the justice to say, that they had lately shown every disposition to comply with the wishes, and consult the interests of the country, by making a variety of proper retrenchments. He trusted they would proceed still further, which would entitle them to that confidence in peace which they had acquired by the conclusion of the war.

congratulated the House upon the accession of strength which the question of economy was daily obtaining. He hoped, that as they now had the benefit of the opinion of those honourable members, they would also have the benefit of their votes.

observed, that there never was a period in the history of this country when there was so unanimous a feeling throughout all classes of people, upon the absolute necessity of economy. He was convinced there was not a single independent man to be found, who did not desire retrenchment, and who did not believe, that the very safety of the country depended upon it. He was certainly gratified in observing, that ministers had begun to retrench, but they must go a great way further, before enough would be done to prevent the ruinous necessity of borrowing money in time of peace. It would never do to go on upon a system of borrowing eight millions in a year of peace. The complaints and prayers of the petitioners were not founded on any party spirit, but arose from the opinions of the country from one extremity to the other. The oldest member of parliament could not recollect a greater degree of public unanimity.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

rose, in pursuance of a previous notice, to submit a motion to the House respecting the state of children employed in the cotton manufactories. The object of his motion was altogether national, as it affected the health and morals of the rising generation, and went to determine, whether the introduction of machinery into our manufactories was really a benefit. The principle business in our cotton manufactures was now performed by machinery, and, of course, interrupted the division of work suitable to the respective ages, which formerly was practised in private houses. The consequence was, that little children of very tender age were employed with grown persons at the machinery, and those poor little creatures, torn from their beds, were compelled to work, even at the age of six years, from early morn till late at night—a space of perhaps 15 or 16 hours! He allowed that many masters had humanely turned their attention to the regulation of this practice; but too frequently the love of gain predominated, inducing them to employ all their hands to the greatest possible advantage. Some time ago he had introduced a bill into the House, for regulating the work of apprentices, which was attended with the happiest results, and their time was limited; but children were still subjected to all the hardships to which carelessness or avidity might expose them. The House were well aware of the many evils that resulted from the want of education in the lowest classes. One object of his present bill was to enable manufacturing children to devote some of their time to the acquirement of a little useful simple knowledge, such as plain reading and writing. He hoped those poor children would experience the protection of the House, for if it were not extended to them, all our excellent machinery would be productive of injury. It might, perhaps, be said, that free labour should not be subjected to any control; but surely it could not be inconsistent with our constitution, to protect the interests of those helpless children. The hon. baronet concluded with moving, "That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the state of the children employed in the different manufactories of the united kingdom; and to report the same, together with their observations thereupon to the House."

said, he had no intention to oppose the motion of the hon. baronet, but he could not concur in the calumny which he had uttered against all the manufactories of the united kingdom [cries of No, no! from all parts of the House]; by stating, that children of a tender age were torn from their beds at an early hour, and compelled to work during a space of 15 or 16 years. To such a statement he must give a flat denial. No doubt there might be some manufactories where those practices were permitted, but he could state that in the manufactories of Scotland, and especially that part of Scotland with which he was connected they did not exist. In fact, it was a general rule in the cotton manufactories of that country, not to employ any children under ten years of age; and as to the general healthiness and convenience of those establishments, he would venture to affirm that the cotton mills of Glasgow were not only situated most advantageously for health, but were conducted upon the most liberal plan. With respect to the object of the hon. baronet's motion, he believed it to be a very laudable one, and likely to produce much good; but he could not help feeling some degree of surprise that the hon. baronet should have deferred such a measure till now, when he was about to quit the concern in which he had been so many years engaged. Those abuses, of which he now complained, must have existed for many years, and equally in his own establishments, as in others, yet he had never before thought it necessary to propose any measures of relief.

hoped the House would permit him to say a few words in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member who spoke last. He had accused him of calumniating all the manufactories of the United Kingdom, but he trusted no one would suspect him of calumniating a body for which he felt so much respect. With regard to another imputation cast upon him by the hon. member, that he had not brought the present measure forward till he was about to quit the concern in which he was engaged, he would remind the hon. member that twelve years ago, when he was deeply interested in it, he brought in a bill for regulating the apprentices in the cotton trade.

said, he was persuaded that it would be found impossible, when the committee went into the business, to apply such a bill as was brought forward last session, to all the manufactories in the kingdom.

took that opportunity of protesting against the principle of legislating for the regulation of the authority of parents over their children, who must be best aware of the quantity of work those children were able to bear, and who must undoubtedly feel most for their distresses. Such a proceeding was a libel on the humanity of parents. He stated that in all the manufactories of which he knew any thing, regulations had been established, which considerably ameliorated the condition of the persons employed, and the air of all of them had been of late so much improved, that labour was not half so distressing as it had been previously. He however had no objection to a committee.

was well convinced that the hon. baronet could be influenced by no other motive than that of humanity, but he thought that there appeared no reason for imputing a system of cruelty to the great body of the manufacturers of the kingdom. Regulations of the best description had been generally established by them, which would be sufficiently manifested to the committee, to which he had no objection.

expressed his gratitude to the hon. baronet, for having so zealously and uniformly exerted himself in support of the interests of humanity. Much good had been already accomplished, and much might be anticipated from the appointment of a committee. The House might remember a circumstance, which by a similar inquiry, had transpired during the last session. It had appeared, that overseers of parishes in London, were in the habit of contracting with the manufacturers in the north for the disposal of children; and those manufacturers agreed to take one ideot for every nineteen sane children. In this manner, waggon loads of those little creatures were sent down, to be at the perfect disposal of their new masters. The fact alone was sufficient to justify an inquiry.

also spoke in favour of a committee, conceiving that the establishment of good regulations in individual manufactories, was not sufficient cause to prevent parliament from compelling their more general adoption. If there were 99 manufactories well regulated, while the 100th was in a different state, that alone would authorize the exertion of parliament.

explained, and in the course of his observations to prove that the apprentices in Scotland were already well educated, related an anecdote of a boy sent from London, who returned when his time was out, so improved and accomplished, that his mother actually walked from London to Scotland to thank his masters for the benefit they had conferred on him.

The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed.

entered at some length into the history of this borough, which was once under the influence of a noble duke, and afterwards came into the hands of sir Christopher Hawkins, who lost it. Mistakes were sometimes made as to the nature of the proprietor and the patron of a borough. The proprietor influenced his tenant's votes. The patron might be quite unconnected as to property with the borough; but he did certain acts to secure the return of the members. When an hon. member opposite was turned out of Helleston, his successor paid 5,000l. besides other considerations.

opposed the bill, contending that sufficiently strong grounds had not been laid for its adoption. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He admitted that the borough was for a long time under the influence of a noble family.

said, that whatever might be thought of the influence of a noble family in a borough, or whatever notions might prevail in Cornwall or elsewhere as to the criminality of such influence or interference in returning members to parliament, he did not think it a matter to be spoken of lightly in that House.

considered that much of the evil having been removed, the borough did not deserve to be treated with the severities which this bill would enact.

observed, that when a system of corruption was known to exist, the House were far from doing their duty if they did not with vigour apply some means for removing it. The case now before them was extremely similar to the Aylesbury case, and he had no doubt the House would show their determination to check it. The respectability of the House was forfeited, and its claims to the confidence of the public annihilated if it did not promptly express its strong disapprobation of the undue means so successfully used in this borough for the promotion of party views. On this principle he would give his vote for the original motion, and he had no doubt that the object of it would be sanctioned by the voice of the House.

was decidedly of the same opinion.

observed, that if this measure were not properly followed up, he saw no reason why Helleston might not revert to the old practice. Three aldermen out of five had, in fact, elected 31 freemen, who being afterwards reduced to 14 or 15, formed the majority, and were related to, or under the control of, the families of the clergyman and an alderman, who managed the borough. He remembered an application made to him once by the duke of Portland, to know the value of the living of Helleston. At that time he supposed it worth about 500l. a year; but he had learned that it was worth double that sum. The living was given to the alderman's son, who only took 100l. a year out of it, and another living was soon applied for. The hon. member referred to Cricklade and Aylesbury, which had now become respectable boroughs, as instances of the propriety of the bill.

The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 22nd instant.

rose to move for a committee to inquire into the state of the Police of the Metropolis. The question, he said, had been often before considered—in 1772, in 1791, and again in 1812; in consequence of the atrocious acts (the murder of the Marrs and Williamsons) which had struck the metropolis with horror and alarm; but the labours of the last committee, as far as any beneficial result might have been looked for, amounted to nothing at all. Much curious matter might be found in the papers; such as, regulations in the time of Edward 1st, orders of lord Burleigh, and other matter of the same description; but no practical benefits ensued.^* He should first state, that he considered the system of giving 40l. on convictions for offences of magnitude a very bad one: the money was technically called blood money; and the consequence was, that offenders were allowed to escape, till by the progress of crime; they increased in value. The giving of sums of money in the way of rewards had also been found very pernicious on the same principle. There were no less than 128 flash houses between Westminster-hall and Temple-bar. To these the profligate of all descriptions repaired as regularly as a merchant to his shop; and he felt a sort of repugnancy that the police officer should associate in all this low debauchery, and laugh at the same board with the offender, till his blood became worth the price fixed on it. He conceived the cause of all this great increase of crime to be, the uncertainty of our laws, and the chance that an offender always had of escape. If the punishments were less severe, but always certain, the number of offences would immediately diminish. At present there were 6,789 penal offences in the English law; and Blackstone himself admitted that this formidable list of punishments, so far from lessening, increased the frequency of crime. Whether from compassion in the prosecutor, unwillingness in the witness, or a leaning towards mercy in the jury and judges, because they thought the punishment disproportioned to the offence, the number that escaped greatly exceeded that of those who were executed; while hardened offenders, looking not to those who suffered, but to those who escaped, persevered the more in their iniquitous courses. Another objection to the present system was the great expense of prosecution. It had been said, that the English law was open to every one, and so was the London tavern. But it was the expense that hindered us from hunting down offenders, and chasing them from society as soon as they appeared. The expense of the different prosecutions last year amounted to 40,000l. or 50,000l. Besides this, there were many parts of England in which the gaols were no more than schools for vice and depravation. In Newgate, the Cold Bath Fields, Tothill Fields, and other prisons of this metropolis, there was no classification whatever of offences: the eye of the public was removed, and innocent and guilty, young and old, novices and hardened offenders, were all thrown together; so that when they were discharged or acquitted, they were turned out on society with lost character at least, if not with vicious acquirements. Within these few days he had himself visited Newgate, and never was there a scene so distressing. Boys of twelve and fifteen were found there, herding with the most hardened and abandoned characters. The hulks were, in the same manner, another great school of depravity, and a means of disseminating vice and misery. No less than 700 persons were discharged from them last year, and let loose on society, without employment and fraught with the instructions of crime. To these must be added the convicts returned from Botany Bay. Mr. Colquhoun stated, that he never knew an instance in which a person returned from Botany Bay did not pursue the same course as before his transportation. He (Mr. Bennet) was not surprised at all this, when he considered the regulations of our police, the severity and consequent uncertainty of our law, the expense of prosecution, and the state of our gaols, in which the new comer could only spend his hours in listening to and hearing applauded the anecdotes of successful crime. With this machinery, and with the addition of the hulks and Botany Bay, all in active employ for the creation of vice, no other result could be expected than that which we found so distressing. In looking at the papers before the House, he saw that there were convicted (if we heard rightly) in 1807, 1070 individuals; in 1808, 1810; in 1809, 1243; in 1811, 1207; in 1812, 1216; in 1813, 1475; in 1814, 1420. During the last year were committed to Cold Bath Fields 1800; to Tothill Fields 600; to Newgate 380; and of those, eighty were only from eight to fifteen years of age. There were in Newgate last Saturday thirty-five under sentence of transportation, and twelve under sentence of death; one boy there, of twelve years old, stated that he had been deserted by his family at six years old, and that since that time he had been frequently in custody; that he went down, with thirteen others, to Portsdown fair, for the purposes of depredation—a distance of seventy miles! This child was now under sentence of death; but he (Mr. Bennet) trusted that some means might be found of restoring him to society, if it were possible to effect his reform. He was aware that it would not be possible for that House all at once to find a remedy for these enormous evils; but he was sure that much might be done by following up the measures recommended by a former committee; by examining whether the police were well administered or no; by ascertaining whether a general board might not be established, and communications kept up with the local police, so that some check might be given to this system of juvenile depravity. At present there were no less than 9,000 children upon the town, living by depredation or mendicity. He should, therefore, move, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the Police of the Metropolis, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."

^* For a copy of this Report see Vol. XXII. Appendix, p. Ixv.

said, the parochial police was absolutely null, if not productive of evil. His attention had been drawn to the subject by the disgraceful riots that occurred two years ago: he mentioned the thing at that time to an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Addington), but his statements had met with no attention. In the parish of St. James were fourteen constables; but as these acted without pay, the vestry, at the time of the disturbances, assembled to appoint an effective police; at the end of four days six persons came forward, and an investigation then took place, whether the parish officers were authorized to pay constables or no; but it was found their pay depended only on the voluntary contributions of the inhabitants. He thought, therefore, a bill should be brought in, and means adopted to swear in and pay a certain number of constables out of that rank which was respectable enough to act with spirit, but could not afford to bestow its time on this service for nothing. He never wished to see a soldier employed in the assistance of the police, and he was certain by these means that the civil power itself would be found quite sufficient.

would only say one word as to a sort of imputation that he thought had been cast on him. He could assure the hon. gentleman that he never intended to slight any application that had been made. The hon. gentleman's statement had been shown to his noble relative, the secretary of state for the home department; but the suggestions were thought a little impracticable, and there was at the time a great pressure of business. As to the motion that had just been made, till he heard the hon. mover's speech, he was quite at a loss to conceive on what ground the motion would be made. From the situation which he unworthily held, he had opportunities of knowing that the metropolis was never more tranquil than at present: but, having listened to the hon. mover's speech, he heard several points which were altogether new to him. The House would concur with him that a select committee ought not to be granted on slight occasions. Yesterday he had an opportunity of seeing what was the state of the metropolis. It had been the practice of the secretary of state for the home department to have a detailed report from the magistrates of the district once a month; and on their meeting last Saturday, they all declared, with the greatest satisfaction, that they had never known the metropolis more tranquil than at present. It was to them rather a matter of surprise, to find it in so undisturbed a state, considering a peace had been recently concluded, which necessarily threw a great number of persons loose upon the town, who might be expected to be betrayed into the commission of crime. This was felt so strongly by his noble relation, that in November last, he had given the magistrates most especial instructions to redouble their vigilance. The increase of juvenile depravity he could not deny. The chief magistrate of the city had told him that every night those boys were taken up, who were found in the streets as vagrants, and endeavours were made, and in many instances with success, to restore them to habits of industry. Besides this, the penitentiary now erecting, and which would be opened in two or three months, would afford the opportunity of placing these juvenile depredators in a situation in which they would not be liable to the evils described by the hon. gentleman, as resulting from an association with the more hardened criminals confined in the ordinary prisons. On the whole, if it was the wish of the House that such a committee should be appointed, he would by no means object to it; but he hoped that their objects would be so narrowed as to afford the best chance for their making an early report on the subject.

The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.

rose to call the attention of the House to a subject of the highest im- portance under the present circumstances of the country: he should confine his proposition to a short compass, because he was afraid, at that late hour, of wearying the House. His proposition, then, was simply this—" That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to represent to his royal highness, that his faithful Commons, relying upon the gracious disposition of his royal highness, to concur in all such measures of economy as may be consistent with the security of the country; humbly pray, that his royal highness would be graciously pleased to give directions, that the division of the state officers made in 1794 (by which, in addition to the Secretaries of State for the home and foreign departments, a secretary of state was constituted for the war department), be revised, and that the, departments of the secretaries of state be, now that peace is happily restored, again placed, with all convenient dispatch, upon the footing on which they stood in 1793." His object in making this motion was to save to the public the expense of a third secretary of state; and the proposition he had to make out was, that this might be done consistently with the public service and the good of the country. Unless he made this proposition clear beyond dispute, he could have no claim to the attention of the House. On former occasions, many debates had arisen in that House as to the office in question. In 1794, Mr. Dundas was appointed to the office then created, under the name of the Board Department; and the question then was, whether Mr. Dundas was capable of retaining his seat in that House while holding such an appointment. The question now had nothing to do with that discussion, but merely related to the expediency of the office. He must go a little into the history of the appointment, in order that gentlemen might have some general notion as to the manner in which it arose. Up to the year 1768, there were only two secretaries of state; but, in consequence of the critical situation of the country during the war with America, a third was afterwards added. In this state things continued up to the year 1782, when, by a bill of Mr. Burke's, the office of the third secretary was abolished. From the year 1782, up to 1794, the business was conducted by two secretaries of state, under the name of secretaries of state for the foreign and home department; they dividing the busi- ness between them, by an arrangement that was most convenient to themselves. In the year 1794, the war going on with France, Mr. Dundas, the secretary of state for the home department, also carried on the business of what was then for the first time called the war department. The business, however, occasioned by the war accumulated to such a degree, that it was thought necessary to separate the two departments; and on that occasion it was, that the office of secretary of state for the war department was created. Thus it appeared that his office grew out of the war alone; it was on the exclusive ground of the great business which the war occasioned that it had been created, and not at all on any consideration connected with the colonial business. The only object of the creation of this office was, to ease the office of the secretary of state for the home department, of the business of the war. He believed (although of this he was not certain) that until 1801—that was for seven years—all business connected with the colonies was transacted by the secretary of state for the home department. It was not necessary on the present occasion to inquire why, in 1801, the colonial business had been transferred from the office of the secretary of state for the home department to the office of the secretary of state for war. It was desirable, however, to know what was the precise nature of the home office. By one of the papers on the table it appeared that Mr. King, one of the secretaries of that office, had on examination stated the business of it to be the receiving of intelligence and the carrying on of all correspondence relative to every part of the British empire, with the single exception of the East Indies, as also every thing respecting grants, pardons, and regulations in all civil matters, preferments in the church, matters of police, the regular army, militia, and volunteers, dispensations, licenses to trade, alien regulations, in short every domestic matter, with the exception of the business of the revenue and those affairs which were under the management of the lord chancellor. It thus appearing that the third secretaryship was created in 1794 solely to transact the business of the war, his conclusion was, that as the war was at an end, that secretaryship ought to be abolished. He called on the right hon. gentlemen opposite to state what had occurred since 1793 to render it inexpedient to recur to the establishment of the state office at that period. He pressed this the more strongly, because no one step had yet been taken by the House on the recommendation of economy contained in the speech made on the opening of the session; and because that speech distinctly stated his royal highness the Prince Regent's readiness to concur in any measures of economy which parliament might think proper to suggest. He declared, upon his word, that he was actuated by no invidious, or personal, or party feeling on this occasion. Were his own political friends in power, he would make the same proposition, and he had no doubt that in that event they would have acceded to it. In the present situation of the country, it became necessary to save every hundred pound that could be saved. He begged therefore to be distinctly understood, that his only objects were the diminution of the patronage of the Crown, and the diminution of the public expenditure. That the latter object was to be obtained by agreeing to his motion, he would now proceed to show. By a paper which he held in his hand, and which any member might procure at the vote-office, it appeared that in 1797 the establishment of the war-office (exclusively of the contingencies) amounted to 10,850l. The expense of the same office was at present 21,000l., exclusive of contingencies. The contingencies, separately, were 8,000l. so that 29,000l. might now be said to be the amount of expense incurred by that office. The difference between this expense, and that in 1797, was extremely great, the contingencies at that time amounting to little more than 2,000l. He by no means wished to hold it out that the whole of this sum would be a saving to the public, but still there might be a saving by the reduction which he proposed, and though not to a very great amount, yet such a one as the country ought to look to in its present state. The office might be classed under three heads—the office itself and its two branches. There were lord Bathurst, and those immediately under him, at an expense of 8,500l. a year, not including the clerks. There was then the war department, and opposite that the colonial department. And here it was that the discussion would arise, as from the estimates which had been made by ministers, it would be seen what it was they intended to reduce. The war department was reduced to 1,400l., the whole being about 4,000l. and 2,500l. to be now taken from it, so that only 1,400l. of the expense of this department was to remain. The office would thus change its character, and become chiefly colonial. He remembered the defence that was formerly offered for continuing it, when he proposed its abolition, amounted to this, that it was really a war office; and that, had it been considered as a department for the colonies, it would have come under the scope of Mr. Burke's bill, and must have, in consistency with its provisions, been done away with. Now, since the war was ended, the ground was changed; and it must not be abolished, because it was intended more for conducting colonial than war business: so that, whether we had peace or war, whether one pretence or another was resorted to, the office must be continued, and the country must support its charges. He was willing to allow that there might be more colonial business now than there was when the business of the colonies was managed in the secretary of state's office for the home department; and in proposing that it should be again transferred to that office, and that the third secretary of state's department should be entirely abolished, he had no objection to make a motion, which he was sure would be agreeable to an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), that he should be transferred along with it [A laugh]. He might be removed to the home department, with the care of the colonies, and a proper number of clerks. The head of the department, lord Bathurst, and his secretary, cost the nation about 8 or 9,000l. a year, including contingencies. By the plan he proposed there would be a saving of 12 or 14,000l. Was not this a saving deserving of attention? He might be told that the business of the colonies had increased so much since 1801, as to render this new office necessary to be continued for the colonies alone: the justice of this opinion he could not assent to. He would only desire gentlemen to look back to that period, and compare the list of our foreign establishments then and at the present moment, and they would find but little increase. We had then in the West Indies, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Essequibo, and most of the possessions that we had at present; we had likewise Malta at that time; we had since acquired in the Mediterranean, the Ionian islands, and in the east the Mauritius; but he did not think those acquisitions were sufficient to justify the continuance of an ex- pensive office, otherwise declared to be unnecessary. The business of the Mauritius might be managed by the board of control. Some other business might be transferred to the same board. The secretary of state's office for the British empire might appear to convey the idea of immense and formidable employment, and certainly was a very sounding phrase; but little more business would arise, he was convinced, though this title again were adopted, and made to comprehend the executive management of the colonies, than could easily be conducted by the home department, with the accession of the hon. gentleman, the benefit of whose services he proposed to give it. There might now and then be a little business of great importance, and of a novel nature, such as a registry bill, but this could not often happen. There might be, he acknowledged, something alarming to ministers in a proposition to dismiss a cabinet minister; but he did not go so far as to propose such a measure. He would merely point out a transfer; and as there was a vacancy by the death of a noble lord at the head of the board of control, he would mention that place as a suitable provision for lord Bathurst. This would be a great saving to the public, and no change as affecting the situations of ministers who, he observed, should fairly divide the public business among themselves. This would not be turning any minister out of office, though he would not say the truth if he did not assert that it was his wish they should all be turned out as soon as possible [A laugh], but at the same time that he said this, he was willing to admit that lord Bathurst was a very good and efficient public officer. What he contended for was, that the war department being now so much reduced, and the home department having many heavy duties to attend to, which might be fairly considered to belong to the war department, the minister who presided over that department; should not be allowed to have all holiday time of it, now that the heavy duties of the office had ceased. It would not be fair to urge that, because the business of this department had been very heavy in time of war, and had been very well performed, the office should now be continued, when it was no longer necessary. There was a department, the reduction of which would, without any inconvenience, be attended with a saving of several thousand pounds in the year. Why, then, not make this saving? He knew it would be said, that the trouble of the situation was very great—that there was a vast deal of business to be done. It was very easy to make business appear very heavy, where a place was to be kept, and he asserted that there was no sinecure place in which it was not possible to make such an appearance and bustle of business for a short time, as would show some grounds why it should not be abolished [A laugh]. When he held the office of treasurer of the navy, he found by experience that it was easy to be busily employed for an hour or an hour and a half every day, in order to keep a situation [A laugh]. Nothing was more easy than to give orders to a clerk to make out some long returns, and to come down to the House in the evening with a large bundle of papers bound up with red tape, which it would appear had been arranged with vast labour and care [A laugh].—He mentioned this to show that several offices which were said to be very laborious might be discontinued, with little inconvenience to the public service. He thought that he had now made out that the third secretary of state's department might be abolished, and the expenses of it saved, with no inconvenience to the public service. If the office were now vacant, and if there were no objections to its abolition but the difficulty of carrying on the public service without it, he was sure the noble lord opposite, the secretary for the foreign department, and another noble lord who occupied the home department, would willingly take upon themselves all the functions which it imposed, and would jump at it for the sake of the patronage it yielded. They would willingly divide its duties to share its influence. But lord Bathurst was in the way, and this was their objection. He felt its force; and in order to obviate it, would take upon himself to provide for his lordship at the board of control. He would despair of attaining that saving for the public, which was the object of his present motion, considering that ministers had at first set themselves against a change, did he not derive some consolation from remembering, that, of late, the second thoughts of his majesty's government had been the best [A laugh]. This appeared to him a most important question. The House owed it to the country, and to the Prince Regent, to offer advice to the Crown, in conformity with the gracious recommendation of economy deli- vered from the throne. This appeared to him one of those necessary measures of economy, and the House would hear how it could be opposed consistently with its principles. He had made as clear a statement as he could, in order that every gentleman might learn the history of the office in question, and understand the reasons for its proposed discontinuance. Here the right hon. gentleman recapitulated his foregoing statements, and enlarged upon some of them. This was not the time for listening to the common arguments in behalf of what was called liberal establishments and proper splendour. We could now afford nothing for outward appearance. The House would not do its duty, if it did not agree to the proposed reduction; which would be important, not so much from the saving—although 12 or 14,000l. was a very considerable sum—as from the evidence that it would give of the principles that parliament cherished, and the motives by which it was actuated. He had made out a clear case for the consideration of the House. He was actuated by no party feelings on the present occasion; he acted with the utmostsincerity; he made his present proposition from motives of duty, and he hoped he would gain credit when he again repeated his declaration, that he would have brought it forward though his nearest and dearest friends had been in office. The right hon. gentleman concluded with moving,

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to represent to his royal highness, that his majesty's faithful Commons, relying upon the gracious disposition of his royal highness to concur in all such measures of economy as may be consistent with the security of the country, humbly pray that his royal highness would be graciously pleased to give directions, that the division of the state offices made in 1794 (by which, in addition to the secretaries of state for the home and foreign departments, a secretary of state was constituted for the war department), be revised, and that the departments of the secretaries of state be, now that peace is happily restored, again placed, with all convenient dispatch, upon the footing on which they Stood in 1793."

observed, that after the ingenious statement made by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, he thought it incumbent on him to state the reasons why he objected in toto to the motion. He trusted that the House knew too well the value of the office which it was at present sought to abolish, to consent to give it up. He assured them, that he was as much disposed as any man to attend to every economical reduction which was consistent with public security, but it was bad economy, if indeed it was economy at all, to commence with the reduction of an office which exercised so salutary a control over our foreign colonies, as that to which the right hon. gentleman opposite had alluded. Bad government was no economy; and it would be bad government to reduce an office which had the care of so valuable a portion of our possessions as the colonies. The right hon. gentleman had endeavoured to impress on the House, that the home department had very little of heavy business at present, and to insist on a retransfer of that business which they before transacted. He, however, would contend, that the home department had such a heavy duty to perform, that to give them the care of the colonial department would be to run the hazard of that department not being properly attended to. For the truth of this assertion he appealed to an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Wynn). He also contended that the importance of our colonial possessions was so great, that it was necessary to have a responsible minister of the Crown to superintend them. It would not be sufficient to say that those colonies should have the one half or one third of the attention of a minister—that would not be the proper mode of directing their important interests; neither would the increase of clerks which had been suggested, be sufficient. The colonies were important to this country in many particulars, and deserved the greatest attention. The House was aware that the trade with those colonies was important, that this country derived great resources from them, and that they therefore deserved the attention of having a responsible minister to superintend them. As to the suggestion of having a part of the colonial business transferred to the board of control, he could not approve of it, and he thought it would not be agreed to by the East India company. There was this objection to the transfer of the colonial business to the home department—that it would expose the interests of the former to neglect. For it was a fact that the business nearest at hand would be always soonest attended to, and this might produce a neglect of the foreign business. For a proof of this he would refer the House to the time when the colonial business was transacted by the home department, and comparing it with the subsequent period when it was made a separate establishment, they would find that it had been more efficiently attended to than at any preceding time. All the attention which had been paid to the situation of the blacks, had been given since the colonial was made a separate department, and it could not have been so efficiently given if it were left to the home department. With regard to the saving which it was said would be made by this change, he did not think it would compensate for the loss which would arise to the interests of the colonies. He denied that the increase of clerks would be sufficient, because, besides not being efficient in deciding on every case which would come before them, they would require a superintendent. He concluded by repeating his assertion, that the importance of those colonies was too great to suffer their interests to be managed by any other than a responsible adviser of the Crown.

said the hon. gentleman having stated the inability of the home department to take any great increase of business, and having appealed to him on that subject, he rose, not so much to argue the question, as to bear testimony to what he knew of the duties of the office, which he could assure the House he should do with the same sincerity as if he were speaking on oath in a court of justice. When he was in the office for the home department, he found the amount of the business there was this: the superintendence of the volunteers and militia was entrusted to one under secretary, and the superintendence of police and aliens to another under secretary. The whole of the labour of the volunteers was now taken away; and that of the militia was also nearly altogether taken away. There was also now a great diminution of duty in the business of superintending aliens. During the year he was in office as large a portion of the business as any other, was that connected with aliens—that must be now extremely diminished; for there was no necessity for the same superintendence of foreigners during peace as during war. He had no scruple in saying, that the business of the home office was now very much diminished, and might admit of con- siderable reduction. Ireland could not now add much to the business of the office. From the home department, there having been subtracted the whole of the business relating to the volunteers, and almost the whole relating to the militia, and from the great diminution of the alien business, and also of the Irish business, it was his opinion that the business of the colonies, as had been the case in the memory of most of them, might be transferred to that department without any injury to the public service.—It had been said by the hon. gentleman, that if the charge of the colonies should be given to the same minister who had the charge of the home police, the former would be sure to be neglected, as attention would chiefly be given to that which was the more pressing. If this objection were made to the uniting the colonies with the war department, there might be something in it. It might then be said, with some show of justice, that in a great campaign, on which the fate of Europe and the civilized world depended, it would be ill-judged in the extreme to add to the charge of the minister entrusted with its superintendence a duty which would incessantly draw his attention from it. He felt confident, that in the consolidation of the business of the colonies with that of the home department, neither the one nor the other would be neglected. In 1806, during the illness of Mr. Fox, lord Spencer was obliged to take in addition to the home department, that of the foreign office for some time. No doubt the united business of the two offices must have been sufficiently laborious; but, however, it was discharged. Surely if this could be done in a time of war without any injury to the public service, the business of the colonies might now be easily added to that of the home department. The hon. gentleman had stated the very great increase of business, arising from the late addition to our colonies, to be such as to render a third secretary of state absolutely necessary. Let the House go a little farther back. Was there never, he would ask, a period when we had as many colonies as at present? [Never,—said Mr. Goulburn across the table]. What, not when we had nearly the whole continent of North America? Was not at that time the whole business of the country discharged by two secretaries of state? [Hear, hear!]. It had been asked, did not the colonies deserve to be now, as well as heretofore, under the superintendence of a cabinet minister? Did his right hon. friend ask any thing inconsistent with this? Did he ask that they should be entrusted to the sole control of an under secretary? He wished to say a word or two as to the business of the colonial department being sufficient of itself to occupy one minister exclusively. If this was the case he would then say, that the business of the office must have been strangely neglected last year, when, in addition to his own duty, that of the foreign secretary had been discharged by my lord Bathurst. Surely, if lord Bathurst found it possible to discharge the duties of his own office and those of the foreign secretary for a considerable period, now that the duties of his own office were diminished one half by the cessation of the war, his time could not be sufficiently occupied. He could state therefore with certainty, that the business of the office of war and colonies having been diminished one half by the peace, and the half of the business of the secretary for the home department having also expired by the war—each of these departments having lost one half, they might be consolidated with the utmost advantage to the public. He had not the same knowledge of the board of control, and therefore he could not enter so circumstantially into that part of the question. The hon. gentleman had expressed an apprehension lest the proposed addition to the business of the board of control might give rise to something like rebellion on the part of the East India company—they would exclaim, we have a right to one whole and undivided minister. Now, he would ask, when lord Melville was president of the board of control, did he not also execute the duties of one of the secretaries of state? Was there any complaint, while that noble lord filled the office of president of the board of control, and that which was stated by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Rose) to be very laborious, but which his right hon. friend had stated to be very easy, namely the treasurership of the navy,—that that noble lord did not find means to discharge the duties of the combined offices in such a way as that there should be no excess of business in any one department? The business having not then run into arrear, it proved that one man could discharge more business than belonged exclusively to the present board of control. He could see no reason, therefore, why the business of the Secretary of state for the colonies should not be divided between the board of control and the home department. One colony ought certainly to belong to the home department—he meant New South Wales. It now, however, stood exactly on the same footing as any other colony. He believed that great benefit would be derived to this colony, by its being placed under the person who was at the head of the police of this country. In every point of view, therefore, in which he could regard this question, he thought the proposed alteration must be beneficial. He did not conceive they could justify themselves to their constituents, if, when public economy was so material a consideration, the House should not avail itself of the present occasion for giving a practical example of it. One of the best securities for the public service was, that all its officers should be fully employed, because it was then most probable that the offices themselves would be filled by active and efficient individuals.

said, he was very much surprised at the statements of the hon. member who had spoken last. What had been said by his hon. friend (Mr. Goulbourn) was, that the business of the colonies was of late years much increased. In answer to this, the hon. gentleman referred to the period when our colonies included the whole States of America; but the hon. gentleman seemed to forget that when this was the case there had been a third secretary of state, called the "Secretary for America and the Colonies." The hon. gentleman was also quite mistaken as to the quantity of business now transacted in the home department. In the alien office, since the hon. gentleman had been in it, the business had increased by one-third. Of this he could speak positively, from his official situation. The correspondence in the home department was more extensive than many hon. gentlemen could conceive—there was correspondence with the admiralty and other public departments with all the magistrates of the kingdom, besides the superintendence of the police of the metropolis. When the right hon. gentleman proposed to unite the business of the colonial department with that of the home department, or of the board of control, he showed himself either totally ignorant or forgetful of the great increase of business in every one of these departments. It would be quite impossible that the business could be executed if any of them were united. The fatigue already suf- fered by those who were connected with each of these offices, was as great as could be borne. The business of the home department was so great, that his noble relation had not been absent from his office ten days in the course of any one year; and he could assure the right hon. gentleman, that the duties were quite sufficient to occupy his time. Every person who called at the office, on business, was desired to state his case; and he received the fullest possible information on the matter in which he was interested. With respect to the office he unworthily held, he could assure the House, that it was not until after two days serious consideration, and the present request of his noble relation, that he accepted of it.

was of opinion, that the business of the colonial department was sufficient to occupy the present establishment. He believed instead of a reduction being made in that department, it would be found necessary to add to it, very considerably, in consequence of the system lately acted on. Government had departed from the ancient system, and had lately proceeded on the principle of retaining, in the colonies which became ours by conquest or treaty, the laws which the power that last possessed them had administered. They had Spanish laws at Trinidad—Dutch laws at Demerara, Berbice, and Essequibo—French laws at St. Lucia—the laws of the king of Candy at Ceylon—Maltese laws in the island of Malta—and he knew not how many other codes of laws were to be found in the range of the colonies. It appeared to him, that if this state of things was to remain, the persons at the head of the colonial department ought to be acquainted with all the languages in which these laws were expressed, and that the members of the privy council, before whom colonial questions might be brought, as a court of the last appeal, would require a similar knowledge. But besides the expense thus occasioned, and the qualifications which a minister was required to possess, there were many other points of view of great consequence. The King of Great Britain being absolute in some of these colonies, if he was ambitious, he might acquire means for being equally absolute in his other dominions. In Trinidad, for instance, his power of raising revenue was unlimited—the taxes of that island had been trebled. This was a revenue altogether beyond the control of parliament. Formerly, by ex- tending our laws to our colonies, we had extended to them our spirit: they had been always ready to defend themselves. But now it was found necessary to have garrisons, to keep the colonies themselves in awe. The situation of the colonies requiring the support of large military establishments, would necessarily increase the business in this department. Under these circumstances, he thought it absolutely impossible that the country could dispense with the business of the colonial department being transacted as it now was. But for his own part he was for returning to the old system of the country; and if the right hon. gentleman, instead of his present motion, was to substitute one for an address to the Crown to adopt the same measures for the administration of the affairs of the colonies which had been directed in the proclamation of the great lord Chatham in 1763, and would thus cause the whole of the colonies to have but one set of laws, then he would cordially support such a motion, and he would agree that the business of the department would no longer be so extensive as to require its being maintained in a separate shape. But the variety of knowledge now required, as to the different laws and languages, made such an arrangement inconsistent with the interests of the country. If the present system was to be continued, it was impossible to dispense with a separate department for the administration of the colonies; none but a cabinet minister should be at the head of the department, and holding this opinion, he could not vote for the motion.

was at a loss to know whether this introduction of the knowledge of laws and languages necessary for a colonial secretary, was intended as a matter of ridicule or not. If it was necessary, as the hon. gentleman seemed to suppose, that so many qualifications should be possessed by the secretary for the colonial department, very few persons, he believed, would be found competent to fill it. With respect to the proclamation which the hon. gentleman said had been issued during the administration of lord Chatham, in 1763, his statement was erroneous. Lord Chatham was out of power before that period, and the proclamation in question was sent forth whilst Mr. Grenville was at the head of the department. The question before the House came to this point—an assurance had been given from the throne, that every possible reduction would be made in the expenditure of the country—that a principle of strict economy would be acted on—and now an opportunity was offered, of saving 12,000l. per annum to the public. Would the House, then, go up with an address to the Prince Regent, praying that the reduction should take place; or, by refusing to do so, would they perpetuate an office which, in his opinion, was unnecessary, and thus violate the pledge given to the people?

contended, that the foreign colonies which we had received, and especially the island of Trinidad, were not yet in a condition to receive the benefits of the British constitution; and it was admitted by the hon. gentleman, that if the British laws were not extended to them, the business of our colonies would be sufficient to occupy the attention of one individual. It did not follow, because the home department had been relieved from the business of the militia, that that business amounted to half of the duty of the office—a great part of that business had been done by clerks. Though the third secretary of state was now relieved from the business of the war, enough remained to justify the continuance of his office. When his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) was abroad, exertions had been made to meet that emergency, and if there had been neglect it was justified by the imperious necessity of the case. Much, too, of the business was then transacted by his noble friend himself at the foreign court where he was then residing. The dilemma was not a necessary consequence that the business was neglected, and was transacted by the noble lord without consultation with his colleagues. The short question before the House was, whether the business of the colonies was not enough for one person? It was his opinion that it was, and that the consequence of annexing it to the home department would be, that either the one branch or the other would be neglected, or cast upon subordinate officers; for the business of the home department had increased one-third in the course of the last ten years. He saw no more reason for transferring the business of any part of the colonies to the board of control than to the admiralty, or any other department quite unconnected with the colonies. The right hon. gentleman then contended, that much inconvenience would result from consolidating the colonial with the home department. It did appear to him, when they considered the great increase of our posses- sions, which had lately taken place, that such a proceeding would be highly objectionable. If the business connected with those colonies was properly performed, it would not only demand a great portion of time, but also of judgment and ability. Looking to the immense accession of the duties which had devolved on the colonial department, and considering the constant series of business which the home department necessarily had to transact, it remained for the House to say, whether the consolidation of the offices ought to be recommended. With respect to the question of economy, it was not sufficient to say, that a sum of money would be saved by doing away with one of those offices. The point to be considered was, whether that retrenchment could be made, without injury to the public interest. As he thought it could not, he should oppose the motion.

said, that as he had had an opportunity of being acquainted with the business of the offices of secretary of state, he did not wish to give a silent vote on the present occasion. It was to be recollected that this office of third secretary had been abolished in 1782, by Mr. Burke's bill, after which it was not renewed till 1794, when Mr. Dundas had the administration of the home department, the war and colonies, which at that time were evidently too much for one person to attend to. The business of the war was then taken from him, and formed into a third department, the colonies still remaining attached to the home department. This was the case till the short peace, when the business of the war department failing, the colonies were transferred to it to keep up the office. He now believed that the business which the third secretary had lost by the peace was more than equal to the whole business of the home department at the present time; and if he were asked whether he thought one secretary enough for both offices, his answer would be, in his conscience, he believed it was. In a report of the finance committee, over which the Speaker had presided with so much ability, it was stated, that the necessity for the office of third secretary of state would depend on the continuance of the war, and the state in which the country was left on the return of peace; but that it was desirable that this office should be reduced as soon as it could be done consistently with the convenience of the public service. It had been said, that the business of the home department had increased one-third. How this could be the case, now the business of the militia was removed, was inexplicable. He could not help suspecting that the motion of his right hon. friend would be rejected; and he was sorry for it, both for the sake of the House and the country. If there were any one opinion more deeply and widely impressed on the public mind than another, it was this—that economy was essentially necessary in every ratification of the public service. If ministers were not impressed with this truth—if they opposed themselves, on this point, to the voice of the country, he conceived they were neither honest counsellors of the Crown, nor sincere friends of the people.

after complimenting the right hon. mover on the manly and candid manner in which he had brought forward the question, observed, that he always felt a disposition to agree to every proposition, the object of which was public economy, and it was not without doubt and difficulty that he had come to the determination, that it was not consistent with the convenience of public business to abolish the office under debate. He was not led to this determination by the circumstance, that this office was not included in the bills which he had brought into the House, because those bills had been drawn up in time of war when there could have been no question of abolishing that office. He was afraid that in endeavouring to save the expense of this office, and to effect a consequent reduction of patronage, the House would cause considerable inconvenience to the public service. He agreed with the 16th report of the finance committee, that the continuance of this office should depend on the State in which the country was left in time of peace. What was the state in which the country had been left? With a great increase of colonies beyond what could have been in the contemplation of that committee. The right hon. mover was aware of this, and he had proposed to call in the assistance of an office which had been appointed for quite different purposes, the board of control. It was desirous that a uniform system should be adopted with respect to the colonies, and he therefore thought it unadvisable that any of them should be put under the same officer as the Company's possessions in India. Then with regard to the saving, he did not think it could be considerable, because an addition would be requisite to the salary of the president of the board of control, for his additional service, and there would be a great increase of clerks required. The expense would probably be as great as at present, and the system would be less convenient. In his exertions on the subject of public economy, he had always endeavoured to recommend, that the efficient officers should be fairly and amply paid, and those offices which were useless should be abolished. Why, for instance, should the two justices in Eyre be continued so long after their duties had ceased? On the other hand, in the efficient offices of the state, the duties had increased in a large proportion. In the treasury the business of late years had doubled; and he was convinced that the colonial business was so increased as to require the whole attention of one secretary. As he thought, therefore, that it would be inconvenient to throw this business on the other departments, he could not agree to the motion. It was always agreeable to him to support a measure, the object of which was economy, but he did not think the office under consideration was one of the first which should be reduced.

said, he did not doubt but that the hon. gentleman who had spoken last had come to the decision which he had formed with much difficulty, and he did not suppose that his objection to the motion arose from its having been made by his right hon. friend, and not by the hon. gentleman himself; but it was extraordinary, that the hon. gentleman did never or very rarely agree to any motions on the subject of economy which did not originate with himself [Loud cries of Hear!]. As to the passage in the 16th report, on the propriety or impropriety of abolishing this office, it must depend on the state in which the country was left, at the conclusion of the war. What, then, was that situation? It was a situation, if they took the word of his majesty's ministers for it, and he had no reason to doubt their assertion, of perfect external safety—one in which they had nothing to dread from the enmity of any power in Europe. It was a state which warranted them in looking forward to permanent tranquillity, to as extended a period of peace as the mutability of human affairs could allow them to hope for. This was the state of our external relations. How, then, did we stand at home? If abroad all was peace and security, our state at home was one of unparalleled and unexampled distress—a state in which no man felt the blessings or enjoyments of peace—and in which the public burthens of the state pressed heavier on the community than they did in the hottest period of the war. Was this a state that required strict economy, or was it not? The hon. gentleman said, we had more colonial possessions now than we ever had before. With great deference to his knowledge, he must deny the fact. It was not so. Before the separation of North America, from the mother country, Great Britain had more colonies, more business to transact connected with them, and, consequently, more necessity for a colonial department, than any man could say existed at present. Now, during all the time of the connexion of the thirteen American provinces with Great Britain, down to the year 1768, when America was in rebellion against this country, there was no additional officer created for transacting the business of that department.—Would any man, then, gravely get up and state to the House, that a necessity now existed for that officer, because there was more colonial business to transact at present, than there was before 1768 [Hear, hear!]. The hon. gentleman had said, that no saving would be effected by the plan of his right hon. friend, because he would transfer so many duties to the president of the board of control, as would make the office as expensive as that of the third secretary of state was at present; and he thought it unseemly for a superintendant of any of his majesty's colonies to be placed under an officer of the East India company, and paid by them. The hon. gentleman did not appear to give his understanding fair play on this occasion. What! could he denominate him the officer of the East India company, whose situation was created for the purpose of controlling that body? What matter by whom he was paid—what matter by whom the money was disbursed—he was clearly an officer of the Crown, appointed under an act of parliament, for the superintendance of Indian affairs, and not an officer of the Company. The Company were compelled to pay the salary—they could not withhold it. They had no control over the president, though he had a control over them. And where would be the incongruity of transferring the Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, and the Mauritius, to the control of him who had all Hindostan, wherever the charter of the Company extended, under his jurisdiction?—Was it fit to intrust all Hindostan to him, and to refuse him jurisdiction over the places he had mentioned? With respect to the course pursued by his right hon. friend, the hon. gentleman seemed to have mistaken it. He imposed no measure on his majesty s ministers. He told them to arrange the business in the best way they could. They might adopt the suggestion of his right hon. friend, and add certain of the colonies to the department of the board of control. This was a suggestion. But his right hon. friend did say, that there was a peculiar aptitude in the present time, for making this addition to the duties of the board of control; because that office being vacant, the individual who was next appointed to it, could not object to the alteration. With respect to the other colonies, why could not the two remaining secretaries do the duties appertaining to them? That was the course pursued in former times. It was said, that part of the duties were not well performed, in those times—that some negligence was manifested. This observation, he thought, was not fair. It was not just to cast reflections on the conduct of those who had probably paid the debt of nature. This was no just ground on which to oppose the motion. In former days, all the duties (and they were considerably more than he would now impose on the existing officers), were discharged by the two secretaries, not only without injury, but with great benefit to the country. The least saving proposed by his right hon. friend amounted to 12,000l. a year, a sum at all times worth the attention of parliament, but more particularly at the present moment, and in the present circumstances of the country. He was not disposed to throw out reflections against any one, or to charge gentlemen with making professions of economy upon which they were not disposed to act. But this he would say, that when a case occurred in which 12,000l. might be saved to the public, it would require stronger arguments than any he had yet heard to convince him that it ought not to be done; and if stronger arguments were not given, the majority of this country would think that the House was not in earnest in its professions.

expressed his perfect readiness to admit that the subject was one of fair parliamentary consideration, and that the right hon. gentleman had brought it forward in a very candid and manly way. He must, however, most distinctly deny that the right hon. gentleman, or any of the hon. gentlemen by whom the proposition was supported, had advanced any arguments which were at all calculated to impress the House with the conviction, that in the present circumstances, the abolition of the office of the secretary of state for the war and colonial department, was a measure, which, with a liberal and comprehensive view of the true interests of the country, it would be wise or expedient to adopt. In the comparison which the right hon. gentleman had instituted between the nature and amount of the colonial business at the present time, and its nature and amount at former periods, he was by no means borne out by facts. No one who considered the subject with any attention, but must be convinced, that that important branch of the public service had doubled in extent since the year 1782, and therefore that the arguments which the right hon. gentleman quoted as having been used by Mr. Burke in that year, when he successfully proposed the abolition of the office then known by the name of the colonial secretaryship, were not at all applicable to the present question. Whoever contemplated the existing condition of our colonial possessions, must feel how considerably those possessions had risen in importance since the period to which he had just alluded. The policy on which the government and the legislature of this country had acted was founded on the conviction, that it would not be wise to permit the erection of a local authority in the shape of a parliament in all the colonies of which Great Britain had obtained possession. The consequence was, that the superintending control of the colonial secretary of state had been augmented to a degree wholly unprecedented, and with which the superintending control of the colonial secretary, at the close of the American war, could bear no sort of comparison. The motion of the right hon. gentleman proceeded on what he (lord Castlereagh) must consider a principle of false economy. In the present state of the public business, when so many and such important considerations came within the purview of his majesty's government, it was his conviction, and he was per- suaded it would be the conviction of parliament, that the responsible ministers at the head of the different departments of the public service, in order to be efficient, ought not to be overcharged with business. They ought to be men, not merely qualified to go through the routine of office, but possessing minds capable of exclusive devotion to the important question over which they enjoyed the control, and capable, through the medium of a liberal comprehension of the public interests, of devising measures by which those interests might be most eminently advanced. When any important public officer bad, by the application of his powers to such a particular object, obtained the means of materially improving that part of the public service over which he presided, it was, he repeated, a false economy, which would recommend such a packing of offices together, as would deprive the country of the advantages which their separation seemed to promise. Relieved as we were from the efforts, from the expense, and from the dangers of war, it was our duty to attend with vigilance to the amelioration of our pacific interests in every part of the world. In this view of the subject, he would maintain, without the fear of contradiction by those who possessed the best means of information, that there was no mind equal to the superintendance of both the home and colonial departments, if any thing more than a superficial discharge of the technicalities of those offices was necessary, and if it was deemed requisite (as in his opinion it unquestionably was), that individuals placed in those important offices of the state should go to the bottom of the questions which came under their consideration, should understand all their most minute details, and should bend their exclusive attention to the means of improving the good which might offer itself, and of remedying the evils that must occur. This was a very different thing from the mere mechanical discharge of duty which must take place, when more was imposed upon any individual than a single human mind could be expected to embrace.—So much for the principle of the economy recommended by the right hon. gentleman. As to the amount, he was far from undervaluing the sum; but even looking at it, according to the representations of the right hon. gentleman himself, it was not one which ought to be put in competition with a public advantage, much less than that which the continuance of the office secured. If the office of secretary of state for the colonial department should be suppressed, it would become necessary to provide for the officers who were attached to it by superannuation. Unless, therefore, parliament clearly saw their way through the states, both of war and of peace—unless they were satisfied that in the event of a new war it would be unnecessary to reconstitute this office—it would be most unwise, with a view to economy, now to abolish it. Nothing could be a more expensive public process than to suppress an office, the re-creation of which became subsequently indispensable. For his own part, he was perfectly persuaded, that if the three secretaryships of state now existing were cut down into two, the public business could not be efficiently and advantageously conducted, even in peace, and that in war it must absolutely stand still. The consequence would be, that in the event of war the office must be revived. On the return of peace new superannuations must take place, and so on, until an expense would be incurred infinitely greater than that attendant on the steady maintenance of the present establishment. The advantage of continuing the third secretaryship of state would appear still more evident, if the possibility of the temporary incapacity for public service, either by illness or otherwise, of either of the other two secretaries was contemplated. Should such an occurrence take place after the reduction of the third secretary, it would be utterly impossible for the single secretary who would then be left, to keep the functions of government in motion. The mode adopted by the hon. gentleman opposite, of reasoning from particular cases, was very inconclusive. It by no means followed, that because the late lord Melville had combined the discharge of the duties of two offices, that such a combination was to be expected from other individuals. It was well known that that noble lord had enjoyed a faculty for the performance of public business, greater, perhaps, than that possessed by any other person in the world. It by no means followed that it would be wise to make his mind the measure of the arrangements necessary for the public service, or to settle that as a permanent principle applicable to all cases which was applicable only to that single exception. Under all the circumstances of the case, whether the House considered the question with a view to the security which ought to be obtained for the able and efficient performance of the duties of the most important offices in the government, or whether they looked to the limited saving that must accrue from endangering, or rather rendering impossible, such an able and efficient performance, he trusted that they would not hesitate to negative the proposition of the right hon. gentleman.

cautioned gentlemen not to be led away by the bold assertions made on the other side. One right hon. gentleman had said, that the business of the three secretaries of state was now much less than at the period when we possessed our American colonies; but he (Mr. Rose) had a distinct belief that such was by no means the fact. He wished to address a few words more especially to the right hon. mover of the present question, who, when treasurer of the navy, had found so little to do, that he had never been employed two hours in the day. Mr. Rose said, that he should have been much surprised if the right hon. gentleman could have found any thing to occupy himself even for a quarter of an hour in the day: for he had left behind him no trace of the discharge of any of the duties of treasurer of the navy but the signature of his name, four times a year, to the receipt for his salary—[Hear, hear! and a laugh.] Well might the right hon. gentleman maintain that that place was a sinecure, for one man would be perfectly competent to the discharge of the duties of two, three, four, or five such places. Mr. Rose begged to assure the House, that, in his hands, the business of the office had been very different—[Hear, hear! and continued laughter.] So laborious was it, that when he retired into the country, he protested that he was under the necessity of occupying many hours of the day in the discharge of his accumulated duties—[Hear, hear! from all sides.] He declared again, that this was the fact, and if any hon. gentleman doubted it, he had nothing to do but to make inquiries of the paymaster, who would prove that of late years the treasurership of the navy had become a most arduous situation.

said, he was old-fashioned enough to think that some weight was due to an act of parliament which ministers seemed to set at nought: while Mr. Burke's bill continued on the statute- book, the office of third secretary must be illegal in time of peace, and those who supported the continuance of that place would do well to bring forward a motion to repeal an act which they were notoriously contravening. In 1782 the office was suppressed; in 1794 it was revived as the secretaryship for war, its advocates contending that Mr. Burke's bill was only directed against the secretaryship for the colonies. In process of time some of the duties of the home department being given to the secretary for foreign affairs, a part of the business of the colonies devolved upon the secretary of war, and he was called secretary for war and the colonies. Now peace was restored, of course all his war functions were at an end, and it was admitted that he could now only be called secretary for the colonies; so that it could not be denied that it was in direct opposition to the bill of Mr. Burke, which declared that the place should thereafter be utterly "abolished, suppressed, and taken away." The next clause provided, that if it should ever afterwards be revived, it should be deemed a new office; and the ministers were consequently in the dilemma, that no person could be appointed to it, and at the same time be a member of the House of Commons. This sort of penalty was deemed a sufficient security against the renewal of the office. As to the time when this motion was made, it was impossible that any could be chosen when the language of the preamble of the act of 1782 would more strongly apply: it was passed "from a desire on the part of his majesty to relieve his people, and to discharge the debt on the civil list without new burthens, as well as to introduce a better system of economy than had hitherto prevailed, and to secure more effectually the freedom and independence of parliament." For all these reasons the office of third secretary had been abolished; and which of them at the present moment would not apply with double force?

began his reply by noticing the allusion of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose) to his conduct while he held the office of treasurer of the navy. He did undoubtedly presume to say, as he conscientiously believed, that the office of treasurer of the navy was a complete sinecure, and consequently a useless expense to the country; but in this he stated nothing more than what appeared in the report of a committee of that House, of which sir Francis Baring was chairman. For this report distinctly denominated this office as a sinecure, observing, however, that if the person holding the office was employed in performing other public duty of aedquate importance, he might be allowed to retain the salary. The right hon. gentleman (continued Mr. Tierney) asserts with his usual correctness, that the only trace I left behind me, when I filled that place, of the execution of any business, was the signature of my name four times a-year for my salary. Now, the fact, unluckily for me, is, that I only received the salary for three quarters [Hear, hear! and a laugh]. At that time I was a poor man, and a poor man I continue to be; and I might have some excuse for receiving the money, even were it true that I did nothing to earn it. But what is the situation of the right hon. gentleman? What excuse has he to offer? he who is burthened with emoluments taken out of the public purse [Hear, hear!]—the calculation of the amount of whose sinecures is the most difficult duty he has to discharge [Hear, hear!]—who makes a boast that they are so numerous, that even his retirement in the country is broken in upon by correspondence regarding them [Hear, hear!.] Surely, it is a little too much that the right hon. gentleman should not only hold all these places, but should boast of them in the face of the Commons of England, who annually vote the money for his payment! Let me ask him if he is not clerk to the other House of parliament?—a place that his children hold in reversion. Let him state the emoluments he derives from that. Let me ask him if he does not hold another sinecure in the court of common pleas; and let him state the emoluments of that [Hear, hear!]. Let me ask him if he is not possessed of a third sinecure in the recordoffice; and, after he has estimated the value of these, and all the other places he has obtained, let him twit me with having signed my name for three quarters salary, while I happened to be treasurer of the navy [continued cheers from all sides]. He asserts that I did no good in the office; let him ask the clerks how I conducted myself [Hear, hear!].

while the House was in great confusion, rose to speak to order. He could not help thinking that this attack upon the right hon. gentleman was irrelevant to the question in debate.—[much laughter and confusion]. Mr. Methuen rose, but again took his seat, the House being in a state of great disorder [cries of Houblon, Methuen, Chair, &c].

as soon as order was restored, said, It does not appear to me that the hon. member has alleged anything to show that the right hon. gentleman was out of order. Therefore, I call upon that right hon. gentleman to proceed [loud cheers].

resumed, and remarked that the hon. member who thought proper to interrupt him on the ground of irrelevancy, might have been in order had he risen sooner, and interrupted his right hon. friend near him, when he was making the attack to which he (Mr. T.) was endeavouring, for his own vindication, to offer some reply. But to proceed to the right hon. gentleman.—He declares that I was a most negligent, and that he is a most active and efficient treasurer of the navy. As to myself, that may be a point not easily settled here; but I confidently refer to every clerk in the office to say whether the business was ever better done than when I was at the head of it [Hear, hear!]. I do not praise myself—the credit was due to the paymaster; for to me the place was, to all intents and purposes, a sinecure. I allow that it would not be very difficult to make it otherwise by harassing all the clerks, and interfering in matters with which the treasurer has no concern; and that I believe is the fact with the right hon. gentleman. I understand that he has introduced some regulations, originating, no doubt, in a good motive, which have given a great deal of trouble, and done no good, and only showed a certain degree of restlessness, of which, I confess, I do not envy the possessor [Hear, hear!]. I state, that, as far as related to that office, I was perfectly idle, whatever may be the fact with the right hon. gentleman. I made no ostentatious display of minutes, though I do recollect a new regulation which I introduced in concert with the paymaster, from which important benefits did result. If the right hon. gentleman will but give me credit for being idle, I will give him credit for doing his utmost to ferret out employment [Hear! and a laugh]—Mr. Tierney then proceeded to notice the arguments in support of his motion, which were called bold assertions, from believing which a right hon. gentleman had wisely cautioned the House. He contended that this was the opportunity for giving a practical an- swer to that part of the speech of the Prince Regent which held out a promise of concurrence in economical arrangements, parliament not having yet saved the people a single halfpenny, every retrenchment being compelled by what the noble lord called the clamour of the people. He lamented that an hon. member (Mr. Bankes) had not stood forward to carry into effect the main object of his parliamentary life, and that he had wasted his censure upon justices in Eyre, and other paltry sinecures, instead of attacking with vigour the continuance of the useless office in question. The chief answer attempted had been grounded upon the circumstances of the peace, it being held by the other side both stable and unstable, as best suited a present purpose. Under the name of secretary for the colonies it had been clearly abolished; and when revived, it was called the secretary of war, and in. that capacity the noble lord (Castlereagh) had appeared in the House at the time of the celebrated expedition to Walcheren—of the credit of which he (Mr. T.) would not on any account deprive the noble lord.—He then proceeded to restate some of the grounds on which he had rested his motion, as he saw many members present who did not hear his opening speech. If a select committee were appointed to inquire, and a case were made out to justify the continuance of the office of third secretary, he would undertake never again to open his lips in parliament. He contended that two secretaries of state were enough for the discharge of all the public business. The noble lord had said, that lord Sidmouth could not go through all the business which lord Melville had conducted; but it should be remembered, that lord Melville not only went through the business of the home department and the colonial department, but also revised the whole system of the East India company, and renewed their charter. He insisted, therefore, that this 12,000l. a-year was a certain dead pressure on the public. If any doubt existed on this point, he would say,—refer this to a committee, and you will then see who is right and who is wrong; but do not be borne down by the assertions of gentlemen in office. He had heard no answer whatever to his statement, except what the noble lord had given. The noble lord had said, that no person could be found equally capable of business as lord Melville; but he (Mr. T.) believed there were a hundred lord Mel- villes at every corner of the street who would regulate what related to the colonial department. What great acts were these profound gentlemen going to perform? He would venture to say, that they would be content to proceed in the ordinary manner, and like him, to leave no minutes in their offices. The noble lord was now brought to the test; and what was much more to the purpose, so was the House of Commons. It was evident that the noble lord and his colleagues would do nothing, unless the vote of that House compelled them. The country, however, expected to be relieved from some of those heavy burthens which they had sustained during the war, and this was one of those useless offices which ought to be abolished. All these things ought to be inquired into, and (added Mr. Tierney) they must be inquired into, or the country will not be satisfied. Very little had been yet effected; but if the people of England, and their representatives in that House, would faithfully discharge their respective duties, economy and retrenchment must take place. The opposition which the noble lord and his colleagues had made to this motion would hold them up in their true colours to the country. For his own part he believed that neither the noble lord nor his colleagues would ever adopt any measures of economy till they were driven to do so from necessity; and he hoped that necessity would be powerfully enforced that night. He had taken what he conceived to be the mildest and the fairest course to all parties, in moving an address to the Prince Regent; and he could not persuade himself but that there were many independent members in that House who would feel that it was no party question.

said a few words, but amidst so much noise in the House that he could not be distinctly heard. All that we collected was, that he wished to defend Mr. Rose against some observations of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He thought, that a person who had passed so long a life in the service of his country ought not to be too severely animadverted on. This produced much laughter from the opposite side, and the remainder of the hon. member's speech was quite inaudible. When he sat down, the cries of question became general, and the House divided:—