rose, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to this question. He would not detain the House five minutes; nor was it his intention, if the motion he was about to make should be opposed, to go to a division: but his object was, to ascertain why the estimate of the lord chamberlain's department, of the 5th of January, had not been produced. In the report of last year there was an order or warrant directing that the lord steward and the lord chamberlain should, at the commencement of every quarter, deliver to the lords of the treasury an estimate of the expenses actually incurred in that quarter. In consequence of this warrant, he had moved for a return of these estimates, and the result of that motion was, that an account was produced of the expenses of all the quarters, excepting that ending on 5th January, 1816, of the lord chamberlain's department. Having been informed that no such estimate was returned, he had moved for a copy of the correspondence between the lords of the treasury and the lord chamberlain, on the subject of the non-return of the estimates for the quarter ending 5th January. Putting, then, all this together, he could not tell what to make of the transaction; and it was impossible to avoid presuming that there was something connected with this unfortunate affair which ministers were afraid to lay before parliament. He should now move for the production of those papers which had been so omitted, and should anxiously wait for the explanation of the noble lord, as he confessed that at present he was totally at a loss to conceive in what manner this delay could be accounted for. He concluded with moving, "That the estimate of the expenses to be incurred in the department of the lord chamberlain for the quarter ended the 5th of January 1816, directed by the warrant of his royal highness the Prince Regent to be transmitted to the lords of the treasury be laid before the House forthwith."

had no objection to the motion of the right hon. gentleman. He would inform the House that there was in the quarter alluded to, no estimate returned to the treasury by the lord chamberlain. There was, in truth, very little difference of opinion upon this subject between himself, and the right hon. gentleman; for he was ready to admit, that it required explanation: but the only question was, at what particular period that explanation should be given. He certainly did not consider that it would be consistent with his duty to give that explanation now, because it could not but be considered as imperfect and ill-timed. It was quite impossible to enter into the discussion of that most important question at this moment, without the necessary information being before the House; and as it was in the contemplation of his majesty's ministers to submit the whole question before the House as soon after the holydays as possible, he was sure the House would agree with him, that any prior discussion would be premature. All he claimed, therefore, from the House was, that it should not now go into the consideration of so important a question at the present period, but wait until the House might, when the proper documents were produced, enter into a full, fair, and deliberate investigation of the whole of the transactions connected with this subject. Certainly there was a considerable arrear in the civil list; and parliament had determined that it was more consistent with public economy not to make any fixed or permanent provision for it, but that the droits of the Crown should be made answerable to supply the deficiencies in that provision. Thus the question stood; and it now became necessary that parliament should take the whole subject under its consideration, in order that it might be determined what amount of provision should be allowed to answer the various expenses incurred under the title of the civil list; and here he wished the House to recollect, that it was not only to preserve the dignity of the Crown that this money was voted, but there were various other expenses incurred, of which the maintenance of foreign ambassadors formed only a small part, and of which it was impossible the House could have any conception until the question should be fully investigated. The right hon. gentleman, he hoped, would be satisfied that it was the wish, the ambition of government, to meet this question in the fairest manner, and to give the fullest information to parliament. He believed that that had always been the system of his majesty's ministers; and, as far as he could recollect, the right hon. gentleman had not called for a single paper on this question that was not produced. It had, indeed, been proposed to go into a minute detail of these circumstances, and it had been refused as tending to prejudge the question; but he would venture to affirm, that not a single paper which had been moved for was refused. He hoped, therefore, the House would feel, that in declining to give this explanation, it did not arise from any difficulty in giving it, or from any doubt but that at the proper time it ought to be given; but that it arose from a desire not to prejudge so important a question, and also to deprecate this personal mode of inquiry, which was too much the habit of hon. gentlemen over the way. He would not permit this personal dictation of the right hon. gentleman to induce him to swerve from his duty; nor could he, as the right hon. gentleman seemed so much to desire, erect him into a House of Commons, and listen to his opinions as being those of the whole House. When the proper time should arrive, therefore, he should feel himself bound to give that explanation so much desired and in the mean time, he should not oppose the motion for the production of the papers.

expressed himself as being not at all satisfied with the answer of the noble lord. His (Mr. Tierney's) object was to make a separate question of this particular estimate, and afterwards to discuss the whole subject; and he would put it to the House, whether it was too much to ask of the noble lord to give an explanation why a certain document was not produced? Was it prejudging the question? Was the House to remain in the dark, just as long as the noble lord pleased, upon so important a subject? He believed it did not require much foresight to discover that there was some unknown mystery, some secret not to be divulged, which the noble lord chose to keep to himself. If lord Hertford had a seat in that House, he had no doubt but that he would assign the true reasons for this extraordinary proceeding, and why his majesty's ministers did not force this quarterly estimate from him. When the proper time did come, he defied ministers to give a satisfactory explanation to the House why the estimate had not been produced: and the noble lord had now very coolly told the House, that no such estimate had been made by the lord chamberlain to the treasury, but that he would reserve his explanation until some future period. On Monday, the 6th of May, he should move to refer this most important question to a committee, for the purpose of inquiring into and fully investigating the whole subject; and he conceived he should be the more justified in making this motion after what had fallen from the noble lord that night: it certainly did furnish him with an unanswerable argument for the appointment of such a committee. The House could not be much prepossessed in the noble lord's favour, when he refused to give any explanation why a document was not laid before the House which should have been produced some months ago. He sincerely hoped that a satisfactory explanation might be given; but he very much feared that the noble lord would entirely disappoint their expectations, and it would then be for parliament to consider what steps should be taken on this most interesting and important subject.

The motion was agreed to.

rose to move for an Account of the sum due from the French to the English government for the maintenance of prisoners of war, which had been remitted by the treaties of peace in 1814 and 1815, to favour the claims of those who had suffered from the confiscation of property placed in the French funds. He said, he could not approve the arrangement which had been made in this instance, as he thought it went to give up that which belonged to the community at large in favour of individuals who were not entitled to such an especial favour for placing their money, if not in the funds of our natural enemy, in those of our natural rival, which came to much the same thing. Though the question on the peace had been already decided, as it was impossible the House could have fully considered the seventy treaties which had been presented to them, he apprehended he was not precluded from offering any observations that might suggest themselves to him by that circumstance. Many of the treaties reflected great honour on the noble lord who had negotiated them; but the arrangements to which he now called the attention of the House, appeared to him particularly open to objection. The individuals in favour of whom the public claim had been given up, were not entitled to such consideration, and the great expense attendant on the commission appointed to prosecute the claims of the individuals alluded to in France, which, as much French law was to be gone into, would probably be continued for four or five years, was that with which the country ought not to be charged. The hon. gentleman then made his motion.

said, that the decision of the House on the treaty of peace certainly could not preclude any hon. member from bringing forward a question like the present. He had no wish to plead this in bar to the motion, but at the same time he thought it right to state the difficulties in the way of making a satisfactory return to it. The account made out by the English government for the maintenance of French prisoners of war, could certainly be produced, as also the counter statement given by the French government, but these would not give the hon. gentleman the balance due to Great Britain. It had long been a point of difference between the two countries, what was due to each other on account of prisoners of war; the French government having constantly charged the English with the expense of prisoners, which they contended were in our service, but which the ministers of this country had contended we had in fairness no right to bear. In 1814, it was thought desirable to set this question at rest by the arrangement then concluded. The probability of the discussion on this question being trailed on for years, if this step had not been taken, as in other cases where the accounts of prisoners of war were under consideration, had partly induced them to act as they did. At the conclusion of a peace this country had not usually been very successful in getting its claims of this nature satisfactorily adjusted; and it was the feeling that this was not to be viewed as a very solvent debt, that had induced them to give up those claims which the hon. gentleman seemed to think ought to have been enforced. The individuals who had been benefited by this arrangement were entitled to such relief, from the circumstance of their having placed their money in the French funds, on the faith of a solemn treaty to which the English government was a party, and their claims had been recognized in the Treaty of Amiens, which recognition had been renewed in the treaty of peace made in 1814. The treaty under which they had placed their money in the French funds, was one by which it was agreed, that in the event of a war breaking out between France and England, the subjects of either country residing in the other should be allowed one year to dispose of their property. In defiance of this stipulation, however, when war again broke out, the property of English subjects in France had been sequestered. The claims growing out of this transaction had been settled by the treaty of Amiens, but that settlement the short duration of the peace made useless to the British creditor. The subject had in consequence of this been again taken up in 1814, and subsequently on the same principle in the late treaty. It could have been wished, that the claims of British subjects on other powers, acting under the control of France, at various periods, who had confiscated their property, should also have been satisfied, but this could not be effected, and the claim had only been enforced against that country which had acted this part in defiance of a solemn treaty existing between the two nations, which treaty had been concluded with the family now happily restored to the throne of France. The fact of the treaty in question having been made by the Bourbons, had furnished him (lord Castlereagh) with a stong argument in favour of the claimants, and had influenced the decision of the French government. In this instance, as in every other, the conduct of that government manifested a sincere desire to fulfil the engagements into which it was induced to enter; and it was but the day before yesterday, that he had received a letter from the commissioners now in France, bearing testimony to the great fairness displayed by the French commissioners, and expressing the utmost satisfaction at the progress already made in the business which they were appointed to adjust. He repeated the statement, that such was the conduct of the French government in every case. What they had engaged to do was most punctually performed, and they were not in arrear for one single payment which they had agreed to make to any of the allies. With respect to the expense of the commission for prosecuting the claimants on account of property which had been placed in the French funds, he did not think the country would complain if it were called upon to bear the whole of it. At the same time he had considered it to be the duty of government to guard against this, and to throw the charge of the commission on the individuals who profited by the arrangement. He did not think they could refuse to pay this, on recovering that property which at one period few expected would ever be restored to them.

thought the best mode of arranging this business would have been to have made it a condition of the peace, that so many millions as were due on this account should be paid by France to England. He had never heard it disputed that a large balance was due to this country in 1814. He had heard it amounted to no less than 7,000,000l. He did not know that this was correct, but he believed this sum had been given in to the French government in 1814, as that which was due to England. Why had not this demand been settled at once? The fact was, the noble lord thought it impossible to do this, and obtain a large sum as an indemnity at the same time, and he had thought it more creditable to his negotiation that the indemnity should be pressed, than that the claims of the British creditors should be enforced; seeing that he had always been talking of "indemnity for the past, and security for the future." The noble lord had therefore stipulated, that a sum should be paid to this country as an indemnity, and left the other question to be subsequently discussed by commissioners of the two countries. He (Mr. Tierney) was one of the claimants, and though it would be speaking against his own interest, he must say, he did not know why his claim ought to be recognised by the English government. The noble lord had told the House, that the expense of the army stationed on the French frontier was to be entirely defrayed by the government of France, and that the sum of 5,000,000l. was to be paid to this country under the head of "Indemnity." He should now proceed to state to the House what was the real result of the treaty of the noble lord in a pecuniary point of view. Of the sum paid as an indemnity to the allies, the share of this country was 120,000,000 of livres. Of these the government had thought proper to distribute 25,000,000 of livres, about 1,080,000l. sterling, to the troops engaged in the battle of Waterloo, and who had been present at the capture of Paris. He had some objection to ministers thus taking upon themselves to reward the army; but on this subject he would not at present enlarge. All he should say was, these twenty-five millions of livres thus disposed of had not been carried to the credit of the country. These put out of the question, the total sum to be paid by France in five years, including the charge of the army stationed on her frontier, was 153,000,000 of francs. On this head there could be no doubt or dispute. This sum, reduced into English money, amounted to 6,398,000l. This was the sum to be received from France, if the stipulated payments were regularly made during the five years: the expense thrown on this country by the army to be kept up in France (deducting the charge for additional pay on account of length of service) amounted to the sum of 942,000l.; to this was to be added the charge for the ordnance, 107,000l.; allowance for forage, &c. 30,000l.; for the rations, on the new regulations, 30,000l.; increased allowances to officers, according to their rank, B0,000l.; hospitals and medicines, 20,000l.—making in all, 1,159,000l

It would thus be seen, that the annual outgoings occasioned by the maintenance of this army, amounted to about 1,160,000l., to speak in round numbers. This being the annual expense, if multiplied by five, it would give a total charge of 5,800,000l. to be incurred by the country on this account in the five years. Let this 5,800,000l. be set against the 6,398,000l. to be paid by France, and it would be seen, that the whole sum which this country would receive as an indemnity, was 598,000l. This was the sum applicable to the service of the country, over and above the outgoings caused by the maintenance of the army in question. We were to receive as an indemnity this 598,000l., and not one penny more.—He had been a little staggered at finding, when the ways and means of the year were brought forward, no mention made of the sums to be received from France. He could now account for the omission.—He should next proceed to show the progress of the expense in the five years, and the manner in which the indemnity was to be received. In doing this he should correct a gross misconception which had got abroad. By the arrangement made with the allies, England, in the present year, would receive 892,000l.; the outgoings, he had shown, would be 1,160,000l.; here, it would be seen, was a deficiency of 276,000l.; in the next year we should receive still less—the sum paid by France would be but 595,000l., leaving a deficiency of 564,000l., and making, with that of the present year, a total deficiency in the two years of 831,000l.

But the noble lord said, go to the third year, and see how we shall get on then, when we are to receive the entire proportion of the indemnity to be paid to England.—In the third year, in 1818, we should receive from France 1,636,000l.; this set against the outgoings, which he had stated at 1,160,000l., gave a surplus of 476,000l.; this deducted from the deficiency on the two years of 831,000l. left a deficiency on the first three years of 355,000l. In the fourth year the receipts would be the same as in the third, 1,636,000l.; the surplus, 476,000l. Deduct from this the deficiency on the first three years, and there would remain an actual surplus of 121,000l.

This was the indemnity of which the public had heard so much, which it would be seen in the first four years did not give 5 per cent. interest on the sums which must be previously advanced, and till the fourth year nothing would in fact be paid to England. In the fifth year we should again receive 1,636,000l., giving a surplus over the outgoings of 476,000l.; this added to the surplus of the preceding year of 121,000l. made a total surplus of 597,000l. This 597,000l. was the whole sum which we should receive in lieu of the indemnity of 5,000,000l. talked of by the noble lord. These figures, he believed, could not be overturned; and this was the result of the treaty concluded by the noble lord, which had been so much praised, supposing the army to be maintained in France were kept up, and the payments of the French government regularly made. If, unhappily, the relations of amity now established should terminate in the first, second, or third year, the balance, instead of being for, must be against this country.

said, that the right hon. gentleman had not given due attention to what had been stated by him on former occasions. He had never entertained or expressed the idea that the contingent of contribution allotted for the use of our troops would be sufficient for their maintenance. He had stated, on the contrary, that the contribution supplied by France for supporting the allied army of occupation was calculated upon the average of allowance made to continental troops, and that the expenses of the British army would exceed that average. What he contended for on former occasions, and what he was still ready to maintain was, not that a large sum would come into the pockets of the public from the French contributions, but that the ordinary and extraordinary advances from that country would enable us to support an army there for securing the peace of Europe without any charge upon our own revenue. It was no small sacrifice to France to be obliged to pay 30,000 men for the general benefit; and it was no small relief to our resources, that we were enabled to accomplish this end without incurring any additional expenditure. Suppose the case had been different, and that we had been required to keep the same number of troops on foot at our own charge, it might still have been good policy to have done so, but it certainly would not have been so advantageous. By putting this supposition to ourselves, the benefit of the present arrangement would be apparent. The right hon. gentleman was inaccurate in his financial statements, as might be shown by entering upon them: but he (lord C.) would not do so, as he was satisfied, and hoped the House would be so, with the general result. When he mentioned the sum of 153 millions of francs as the whole of the French contributions, he had forgotten the sums raised and applicable to the service of the country before the signature of the treaty. He would not, however, enter into these details, as all that he contended for was gained by the admission that we could support our contingent of the army of occupation without imposing new burthens upon the country, and that we made France pay for warding off the danger which might be apprehended from the convulsions to which she was exposed.

said, it now appeared at last, that all the indemnity obtained from France would be swallowed up in the maintenance of an army, kept up on the frontiers for the security of the existing government of that country. The house had never been informed of the result of our sacrifices, in figures, in the clear manner in which they had been that evening by his right hon. friend. He considered the arrangement made by the noble lord objectionable in every point of view. But his principal object for now troubling the House was, to say a few words on the more limited subject of the motion of his hon. friend. The manner in which the claims of the country had been given up, was another proof of the easy way in which the property of the country was usually thrown away; and he thought that nothing could be more clear than that the noble lord had been over-reached in the negociation of these money matters by the government of France. When the treaties were discussed, this subject had been so much smothered in other more important matters, that it would have been impossible to get the House to attend to it. The return now moved for, would throw light on the subject. Besides giving up the expense of maintaining all the prisoners of war of France, we had also given up the charge for recovering the French colonies after the return of Buonaparté from Elba, for the French government. He believed, if the account were made out with any tolerable degree of fairness, that the balance due to this country would amount to a very large sum indeed, from the immense number of prisoners maintained by us. The noble lord had stated the difficulty of making out any account between the two countries on this subject, from the French in their claims choosing to consider many persons prisoners whom we did not consider as such. But even if we were to have given any sum proved to have been paid by the French government in maintenance of persons detained by them as prisoners, still no sum which could have been claimed from the noble lord, would have amounted to a tenth part of the sum due to this country. The great mass of the persons detained were travellers moving about for amusement, who could not have been fed and clothed as prisoners of war. There could not have been 5000 of them, for whom any actual expense was incurred. He could not help thinking that the noble lord had brought forward these English travellers detained, by way of hiding the real question from them. With respect to the property of British subjects said to have been secured by lord Auckland's treaty of 1786, he contended that even if this property were so secured, it was unwarrantable to give up the property of the public for the sake of sums due to individuals. But in this case there was not a shadow of claim under lord Aukland's treaty. The great mass of the British claims was for property vested in the French funds. The French government, either from necessity or from revolutionary principles, had reduced their debt to one third of its amount; but this measure had not been applied to British subjects alone, but to every person having money in the French funds, natives as well as foreigners. The noble lord had set up a claim for the British subjects for the two-thirds retained from them; but he did not see why a distinction should be made in the case of British subjects, any more than in the case of Germans, Dutch, or Italians. But the principal reason why he objected to the enforcing these claims was, that it established a principle of interference which might afterwards be applied against ourselves. Supposing any arrangement were to become necessary with respect to our public debt—the deferring the payment of the interest, or reducing the rate—should foreign governments be allowed to interfere on the part of their subjects having money in our funds?

could not refrain from observing, that among the many singular circumstances that marked the conduct of the hon. members opposite, there were none more singular than the accusations which they had that night preferred against his majesty's government on the subject now under discussion. The first accusation was that government had not enforced against France those claims which ought to have been made for the sums expended in the maintenance, of the French prisoners in this country. He did not see on what general principle it was that such a claim should be enforced in a treaty of peace. Was it ever urged as a censure against the ministry that had concluded the triumphant treaty of Utrecht, that such a claim had not been insisted upon in it? Was the treaty with France in 1763 ever complained of on this account? In the circumstances under which the last treaty had been made with France, it was to be recollected, that if our attitude during the negociations were vic- torious—if our situation were such that we were capable of dictating the terms of the treaty, the other allied powers were in exactly the same advantageous situation; yet they had asserted no such claim. Even Russia, for instance, although from the events of the war she must have maintained such a number of French prisoners as cost her several millions, had made no such claim. But besides this, our claim on this account would have been one which could not have been estimated without the greatest difficulty—the amount of which it would have taken several years to ascertain. And then it was to be balanced against the similar claims on the part of France; and the statement of these would have been attended with still greater difficulties, on account of the great number of prisoners which she had made of foreign troops, fighting in the pay or under the standard of this country. There were no fewer than 100,000 Spaniards taken prisoners in the last war, for whose maintenance the French government might advance a claim on ours. He begged that all these circumstances might be duly weighed. It was by the treaty of 1814, and not by that of 1815, that the transactions relative to the prisoners had been arranged; and by it the claims of the British creditors had been accepted as a compensation for the maintenance of the French prisoners. This arrangement was completed by the treaty of 1815, and the measures were actually settled by which the payments were to be made for the benefit of the British creditors. Commissioners had been appointed for this purpose, and the sum of 70,000,000 of livres had already been actually paid into the hands of these commissioners. Considering the situation in which we stood, by the number of troops which we kept in the French territories at the expense of France, and the number of fortresses in that country which we occupied, it was impossible for him to see what more beneficial arrangement could have been made. If France completed the payments of the contributions, there would be a surplus in our favour after defraying the expense of the maintenance of our troops.—With respect to what had been said of sums expended by us in fitting out expeditions to recover the French colonies after the landing of Buonaparté, it was founded entirely upon mistake. No such expeditions had ever been actually sent from this country. All that had been done was to cause some of the French colonies to be occupied by the British forces in the neighbourhood of them.—As to the arrangement made with respect to those persons who had property vested in the French funds, it was certainly true that no deduction had been made from their claims of the two-thirds which had been lost by all the public creditors of France, in consequence of that revolutionary operation called the tiers cassé. The British creditors of the French nation had been treated exactly in the same way as the French subjects had been treated who vested their money in the British funds; for as with respect to the latter no charge had been made for those taxes which had been borne by the British subjects, so with respect to the former no deduction had been made for that loss which had been sustained by the public creditors of France from the operations on the French funds during the revolution. He knew no principle of greater equity than that which had been acted upon in this case. As for the motion now before the House, it was so worded as to assume the fact, that a balance had actually been struck, and some sum found to be due to this country by France; which was not the fact, as no such balance had been made. There could be no objection to furnish the House with such papers as would contain the necessary information on this subject, and therefore if the hon. gentleman would alter the words of the motion so as not to assume the fact of a balance having been struck, it could meet with no opposition.

said, that as far as he understood the treaty of 1786, it contained not one word respecting the claims of British proprietors of French stock. His objection to the measure was, that it was giving up without any sufficient reason a sum which was clearly due by France to this country. As to the objection to the motion from the way in which it was worded, he did not see that it was just.

said, the hon. gentleman must be aware, that there was a great difference between making and recovering a demand. The treaty negotiated by lord Auckland in 1786, contained a clause which he conceived must have escaped the hon. gentleman's attention, and which provided for the security of British holders of stock against all sequestration on the part of the French government; and it was upon this principle that the stipulation of the treaty of 1815 was introduced.

wished to call the attention of the House to a very rash concession made by the chancellor of the exchequer, in his speech upon this question, namely, that there was any resemblance between that nefarious breach of faith with the public creditor of France, which had been made under the name of the tiers cassé, and the tax which was laid upon the holders of stock in this country. No man could suspect him of any partiality to the income tax; but really when he heard any expression let fall with respect to it which could be construed into a comparison between it and a notoriously dishonest act, by which the public creditor of France was deprived of two-thirds of his property—a comparison which would be most gladly laid hold of in France—he could not let it pass without notice.

said, he should be quite misunderstood if he was supposed to have intended to make the slightest comparison between taxation in Great Britain and the revolutionary trick by which the French stockholder had been deprived of two thirds of his property. The latter was a complete breach of faith—an act of flagrant bankruptcy; the former was a matter of general contribution, sanctioned by law, founded upon justice, and every sound principle of national policy. What he meant to state was this, that one ground of claim by British subjects to receive the whole amount of the sums which they had invested in the French funds, was the extreme liberality by which foreigners were exempted from the payment of taxes on those sums which they vested in the British funds. As the hon. gentleman declined making any alteration in his motion, he found it his duty to propose the following amendment—that the account to be presented should be, "of the sums claimed in 1814 and 1815, for the maintenance of prisoners of war by Great Britain from France, and by France from Great Britain."

wished to know in what the amendment differed from the motion.

said, the difference was this, that the amendment brought into notice the claims of the French government.

—Were these claims made for the maintenance of prisoners of war during the time of Buonaparté?

—They were the claims made in 1814.

—I should like to know what claims were made on this account in the negotiations for peace with Buonaparté. It would be curious to see what difference there is between the claims of a legitimate and an illegitimate government.

I see no reason why the curiosity of the right hon. gentleman may not be gratified on this point.

The following motion was at length agreed to: "That there be laid before this House, an account or estimate of sums claimed in 1814 and 1815 by the British government from the government of France on account of the maintenance of prisoners of war, and of the sums claimed from the British government by the French government on the like account, at any period within the last ten years, distinguishing the dates of such claims, and their amount respectively."

moved, that there be laid before the House, "a return of the duties performed by the several officers employed in the office of the paymaster-general upon the different foreign stations, with an account of their salaries and establishments." His object in moving for this account was, to see whether some arrangement might not be made for paying the navy on foreign stations. According to the present system, neither officers nor common sailors in the navy received any pay upon foreign stations, in consequence of which they were exposed to the utmost inconvenience. He understood, that the business of the paymasters of the army on foreign stations were now principally transacted by the commissariat, and, therefore, as the establishment of the paymasters-general were to be supported during peace, he thought they might very conveniently be employed in affording the navy the advantage which was enjoyed by the army, of receiving their pay on foreign stations.

acknowledged that the public was much indebted to the hon. gentleman who proposed this motion for his zeal in endeavouring to secure for the navy all possible advantages. But when he adverted to the object of the hon. gentleman's motion, which he understood to be to introduce some measure for paying seamen employed on foreign stations through the medium of the paymasters of the army, he considered it to be both useless and dangerous. By the allotment act one half of the pay was set aside for the support of the seaman's wife and family, and one third was allowed to be taken out by himself in slops, besides an additional sum for tobacco. Even if the plan were desirable, could the country support the expense of sending paymasters to every part of the world? He doubted much whether it would be advantageous to the private interests of the sailor, but he was sure, that in a military point of view, it might be productive of the most serious consequences to the country. It might lead to a detention of the men in every port which a vessel of war should enter. Much, he believed, remained to be done in putting the navy on a proper footing; but no advantage, he was convinced, could accrue from the plan of the hon. gentleman.

had no objection to the motion, so far as it went; but as to the ulterior object of the hon. gentleman, it was a thing so completely out of the question, that after the able statement of the gallant admiral who spoke last, he would not have troubled the House at all, only he wished to mention an instance which would show the advantages of the present arrangement, as to the mode of paying the navy. When the British fleet, under lord St. Vincent. was lying off Cadiz, the French fleet put to sea, and within twenty-four hours the British squadron was in pursuit of it. Whereas, if the arrangement which the hon. gentleman talked of had been adopted, and if the fleet was to have received their pay at that time, it would have been impossible for our fleet on that occasion to have been ready to go after the French squadron before the end of three weeks, by which time it would have been too late. At present, the sailor had the means of appropriating his pay to the support of his wife and family, or parents, while he himself was on foreign service, and at the same time wanted for none of the necessaries which he required, whereas the effect of paying sailors on foreign stations would be to tempt them to squander their money, and to forget their wives and children at home.

saw no objection to the motion; but the arrangement contemplated by the hon. gentleman was utterly impracticable, and very unadvisable even if it could possibly be adopted. He could not refrain from once more noticing, that it was a most imprudent thing for members to bring forward motions on such a subject as this, without furnishing themselves with the necessary information; because, when such motions were rejected by the House, and the news of their being negatived was heard by sailors, they were, of course, apt to think that their interests had been neglected. At the same time, he gave the hon. gentleman credit for endeavouring to effect what he conceived was a measure which would do good to the navy; but it was a thing quite impracticable.

only objected to the motion because it was the first step towards a measure which was utterly impracticable. All such propositions brought before the House unadvisedly, and without due information, produced very mischievous effects. He moved as an amendment, "That the House should pass to the other orders of the day."

feared he should appear presumptuous in adhering to his opinions, against the authority of so many persons of high rank in the profession. He was fortified, however, by what he knew to be the sentiments of other officers of equal rank, character, and experience. He conceived it to be a libel on the character of the British sailor to say, that if he were entitled to receive his money, he would not fight the enemies of his country without it. Was it not hard that he should be compelled to serve five or seven years on a foreign station, and during that period not be permitted to draw a shilling of his pay, except in slops, which he was obliged to sell at half their price? The army were in a different situation, and all he wished was to see the same system applied to the navy. He proposed only to suffer the sailor to draw a proportion of his pay, either twice or three times a year. If such a plan was not applicable to the private seaman, there was at least no necessity for not extending it to the officers, some of whom were allowed to draw on the commissioners of the navy, but at a heavy discount.

concurred in opinion with those hon. members who had opposed the hon. gentleman's proposition.

was of opinion that the justice of the case was on the side of the hon. mover's argument. It was not surprising to him that honourable officers should be prejudiced against any innovation proposed in the practice of a profession in which they had been so long and so honourably distinguished. There might still be some points upon which im- provement was desirable. Instead of repulsing every proposal of this nature, he could wish to see them attentively investigated by those to whom the administration of naval affairs was confided. To him there appeared to be too much of coercion in the system, and he thought it desirable that the men should be more attached to their service.

said, that it was assuming a gross breach of discipline among the seamen to suppose they sold their necessaries. It was no new thing for seamen to refuse to go to sea when they were entitled to pay. Not that he supposed they would refuse to go out with the certainty of meeting an enemy—but this was only an extraordinary event, while the ordinary and more laborious business of the service was just as necessary to be performed. It was true, coercion was employed in the naval service, but it was necessary. There was nothing so delightful in a man of war that men would enter without coercion; but the state of the navy during the last ten years, and the emptiness of the hospitals, proved that the men were not badly used. If the system of paying men abroad was adopted, it would be necessary to carry public accountants, of whom he had no great opinion, all over the world. He saw no reason, however, why those officers who were allowed to draw for their pay should lose by the exchange.

withdrew his amendment, and said he should vote for the rejection of the motion, as the information required by it was on the table.

The motion was then negatived.

said, he had before called the attention of the House to the disgraceful state of the silver currency. It was well known that in change for a pound note persons usually received one half in French coin, and the other half perhaps in counterfeit coin made at home. From a conversation with an eminent French merchant, he had reason to believe, that within the last twelve months not less than 200,000l. worth of 12 and 24 sous pieces had been imported into this country. It was not surprising that this great importation should have taken place, when it was known that there was a profit of 20 per cent. on these transactions. There was now no reason whatever that the silver currency should continue in this debased state, because that very day silver was at the mint price. He believed there was an act of parliament existing, which stood in the way of coining shillings and sixpences any where but at the mint, which it would be necessary to repeal, as a preliminary step to the remedy which it was proposed to apply. He concluded by moving, "That there be laid before this House, an account of all foreign gold and silver coin and bullion imported into this kingdom from the 1st of January 1810 to the latest period, as far as the same can be made up, distinguishing each year, and distinguishing the coin from the bullion."

said, the return would be necessarily imperfect, as there was no duty paid on the importation of these articles.

said, he had expected from the chancellor of the exchequer, some assurance of relief to the country, from the nuisance and disgrace under which it laboured at present, from the state of the silver coinage. He hoped something would be done on the subject, before the close of the session. A measure which he should suggest, would be to alter the standard of the silver currency, so that it might not be carried out of the country on every slight variation of the price of that metal. No inconvenience would result from this, because gold should always be looked upon as the real standard of value. By a reduction of the silver coin, to the amount of 10 per cent. the object which he had in view would be answered, and the expense of calling in some of the present currency would be defrayed. This measure would require to be preceded by a committee. No time should be lost in taking some step, and in letting the people know that the foreign coin which was now in circulation would not always be suffered to pass current. He understood that the government was now in possession of a great sum of silver, by which, as by many of their speculations, they were likely to be great losers; but this would facilitate a new coinage. He hoped that when the coinage took place, the mint officers would pay some attention to their work, and take some pains to understand what coinage was. We had a building that cost 2 or 300,000l., and a large establishment, yet such was the disgraceful state of it, that when they had a few tokens to make, the officers knew nothing of the matter, and after many attempts all the dies were broken up. In coining gold for France, they had not improved their reputation, and had concluded by blowing up the mint itself. He hoped the master of the mint would think it worth his while to know a little of his business.

The motion was carried.

rose to state, that his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) who had given notice of his intention to make a motion on the subject of the civil lords of the admiralty, was prevented from doing so by unavoidable absence, but meant to bring it in a regular shape before the House after the holydays.

expressed his conviction of the necessity of great reductions of expenditure, to enable the country to go on at all. He adverted to the amount of the superannuation and half-pay for the navy in 1791, as compared with what it was at present. At the former period the superannuation and half-pay estimate amounted only to 211,000l., while now it was 1,279,841l. being an increase of more than six times its former amount. He dwelt upon the necessity of appointing a committee to revise the whole system of the superannuation and half-pay both of the navy and army, as compared with each other.

The report was agreed to. The report of the committee of supply relative to the salaries and contingent expenses of the navy office for 1816 was next taken into consideration.

said, that notwithstanding the assertion of a right hon. gentleman on a former night, that all the accounts of this office were settled, he would affirm that not one single ship's pay-book, had been made up and finally settled since the year 1786. It must be manifest, however, to the House, that there was no check whatever on the clerks in this office until the pay-books of the different ships were made up and complete. He declared his intention of moving for an account of the pay-books that had been settled since the period he had mentioned.

said, his assertion on a former night was, that the books in his office were nine years in arrear when he entered it; that these arrears had been brought up, and that the accounts were now audited up to the very latest period. He was perfectly willing that the hon. admiral should move for any accounts he pleased on the subject.

replied, that the books he meant were the pay-books of every ship in the service. It was evident that the only effectual check which the public had on the clerks of the navy pay office was, these books, not one of which, he would venture to say, kad been passed during the whole of last war.

asked, was he then to understand from the hon. admiral that no shipbooks had been made up since the year 1786?

replied in the affirmative.

The Report was then agreed to. On the motion, that the resolution of supply, for defraying half pay, superannuation, allowances, and pensions, to officers of his majesty's navy and royal marines, their widows, and relatives, for 1816, be now read,

observed, that the question had often been discussed in that House as to what should be the extent of allowance for retirement from office. It must be well known to gentlemen conversant with the public departments, that there were two causes for the retirement of individuals from office, the one arising from their incompetency to perform the duties, and who ought never to have been appointed; the other arising from having served honourably and faithfully a long series of years. In the estimate now on the table superannuations appear, in some instances, beyond the amount of the greatest salary and allowances given to the individual in full execution of his office;—in no case had this House authorized such extravagance and misapplication of the public money. The instances in the paper which he held in his hand were notorious. If the House looked to the 2nd line of the 35th page, they would see 700l. to a commissioner of the navy; if they carry their examination a little lower down in the same page, they would find the wife of that commissioner receiving at the same period 300l. per annum, making the full amount of the salary of a commissioner of the navy;—proceeding a little further with this estimate, they would find a commissioner superannuated, after a very few years service on 1,000l. perannum; and in the same page they would find this individual receiving from the public 500l. more, making the sum of five hundred per annum more than the salary of a commissioner in activity. It was possible the abilities of this gentleman were beyond the scope and understanding of his colleagues, and therefore it might be necessary to remove him; but surely, the public had a right to complain of such mismanagement of the resources of the country. These, and many such instances, were to be found in this estimate, and being there he humbly submitted to the House the necessity of a revision of them, or a committee to inquire, in order to prevent such misapplication in future. The hon. admiral then adverted to the army estimates, and said it was impossible to compare the one with the other, without experiencing the most distressing and degrading feelings at the difference which the services of the one were estimated when compared with the other. He instanced the case of the widow of capt. Harvey, who commanded the Brunswick in the ever memorable and glorious first of June: the widow of that officer, who was selected to second the great and good lord Howe, in his gallant achievement of forcing the enemy's line—the widow of that officer, who fell in the execution of his brave admiral's order,—mark, then, how bitter is the comparison;—the widow of captain Harvey and her child shall have 125l. per annum, The widow and children of the lieut. colonel of the 20th regiment, commanding the troops at Washington, shall have 1,100l. Nay, the relatives of major-general Brock shall have 800l.—It was unnecessary to trouble the House with reciting many other cases of a similar nature, such as the widows of captains Duff and Cooke, whose husbands fell in the battle of Trafalgar. One very recent instance appeared—a gallant young officer, who was but lately a member of this House, and who fell on the same service as the husband of Mrs. Ross,—the widow of the one had, as above stated, the widow of the sea officer, 200l.! Such a disproportion was not, he thought, to be borne: it was for this, as well as for many other reasons, that he entreated the House either to appoint a committee to examine the superannuations of the two services, or undertake to revise the present estimate. Proceeding to another branch, namely, the superannuations of petty officers—however friendly he had through life been to this meritorious class, he must say, that unless the warrant officers superannuations were considerably augmented, the petty officers were extravagantly high; for as they now stand, the petty officer might receive 54l. per annum, whilst the pay of a warrant officer of a third rate did not exceed 36l. or 39l. Upon the whole he was most decidedly of opinion, that unless the system was generally revised by persons competent to the undertaking, the public would have great reason to complain of the wasteful and unwarrantable expenditure, and the individuals, in many instances, would be left to suffer under the greatest injustice.

thought it impossible to listen to the hon. admiral's statement without the deepest interest, and without admiring the temperate manner in which he had made it. He hoped, however, that the House would not be displeased, if he undertook to show that the gallant admiral had taken a very erroneous view of the subject. It was not quite fair in him to compare the pensions granted in 1794 to the widows of naval officers, with those given in 1815 to the widows of officers in the army. The only candid mode would have been to compare the pensions granted in both services at the same period, and it would have been seen that exactly the same allowances were made to the widows of officers of equal rank in the army or in the navy. Of the cases referred to, he should begin with that which was first in the order of importance—he meant the case of the widow of capt. Harvey. The hon. admiral had stated, that she had only 100l. a-year, and 25l. for her child, while the brother of general Proctor had received 200l. a-year. Now, it should be recollected that the sum given to Mrs. Harvey was that which was usually granted in 1794 to the widows of post-captains who had fallen in battle, and the army estimates contained pensions to the widows of colonels, granted at the same period, amounting to no larger a sum. It would be opening too wide a door, if the House were to go back to the distant period of the half or quarter of a century, and raise all the pensions which had been then granted. There was no instance of any pension being increased after the period of its original grant. The later grants however had gone on on both services increasing in amount, and the widow of his gallant and lamented friend, sir Peter Parker, had received 200l. a-year, and his children pensions of 50l. each; a larger sum, he believed, than had been granted to any military officer's widow of similar rank [No, no; from sir C. Pole]. The hon. admiral would find that he (Mr. Croker) was correct. There was no widow of a colonel or lieutenant-colonel who received so large a pension as that he referred to; but the reason was, that no case had occurred similar to that. In the army estimates he remarked that the same pension that was given to Mrs. Harvey, had been given to Mrs. Dauncey, the widow of a lieutenant-colonel, who had been killed in action. It was, in fact, the highest pension then given to the widows of officers of that rank. If the hon. admiral would in this way compare, pound by pound, the pensions given to the widows of officers in the two services, he would find a general correspondence between their different ranks. The complaint of the gallant admiral was therefore not more founded than would be that of an officer in the army who should compare the pensions of the widows of naval officers at the present time with those bestowed on the widows of officers in the army in 1794: and who should assert upon that ground that the widow of a lieutenant-general received only 50l. a year, whilst that of a post-captain had 200l.—There was another point also to be taken into consideration. It would not be justifiable in the Crown to grant these pensions, without looking a little into the private circumstances of those on whom they were bestowed, and proportioning them to the nature of those circumstances being more or less easy. He could assure the hon. admiral that it was a much more agreeable service to a person in the situation which he had the honour to fill, to be the instrument of bounty, than the channel of refusals: he would be truly happy to see the condition of all those interesting classes bettered if it was thought possible to do so with justice to the public interests, and it was far from his wish to dissuade the House from further extending their bounty, if they saw fit. With regard to the pension of 700l. a year to a commissioner of the navy on going out, it was at least a usage of very long standing; and he had to remark, that all the advantages held out were not more than sufficient to induce competent naval officers to undertake the office. He had also to state, that the only two superannuations of commissioners made by the present administration were in the persons of two gentlemen, both of them extremely aged. One of them (commissioner Fanshawe) had been no less than 40 years in the office. As to the rates of pensions to petty officers, it was made imperative on the admiralty to increase them, in consequence of the increased pensions which Mr. Windham's bill gave to non-commissioned officers in the army. He extremely regretted that this bidding for popularity between the two services had been introduced; it formed one of the many grounds on which his hon. friends had powerfully, though unsuccessfully, opposed the plan of Mr. Windham. But, right or wrong, that system had been established, and the increase of navy pensions had been its inevitable effect: for it must be obvious that it would have been quite impossible to propose the taking away of those boons from the British army, at a period when the fate of Europe might be considered as depending upon its prowess. If, then, you could not return upon the army, and take from them their pensions, it became imperative to equalize with them the scale of navy pensions. And, indeed, the argument held still stronger with regard to the navy; for, generally speaking, the seaman, who must be bred up to the profession from his youth, was a much more dependent being when unfit for service than the soldier, who had often his trade to resort to. He was less able to earn his bread when disabled from service. Indeed, ever since he had a seat in that House, he had always heard wishes expressed for the bettering of the situation of the petty officers of the navy, on whom perhaps still more depended in battle than on the non-commissioned officers of the army. And the increase seemed the more reasonable, in the navy as there were deductions made from the pay of seamen for paying these identical pensions.

repeated his remark as to the hardship of a petty officer having perhaps 54l. a-year of half-pay, while a warrant officer had only 36l.

stated, that at this moment there was a general survey going on through the country respecting warrant officers in the different ports, with a view to ascertain their rights to superannuation.

understood, that when the widow of an officer married another officer of the same rank, her pension ceased; but, if her second husband died, her pension did not revive. This was both hard and unjust.

stated, that the pensions were not under the control of government, but of the corporate body of the commissioners for widows pensions. He thought that the occasion stated by the hon. gentleman was very rare indeed; it would only happen when the second husband died within a year of his marriage, and when such a case should occur, he had no doubt the commissioners would recommend to the Prince Regent to grant the widow a pension equal to what she should have had in the first instance, not possessing the power of doing it themselves. In the present estimates a case would be found very much resembling that mentioned by the hon. gentleman, in which that course had been adopted.

said, that notwithstanding what had been urged by the honourable secretary, it would be found that in point of fact, the pensions granted to the army and the navy, if compared together, relatively to the two periods of 1794 and 1816, were not equal. There were many points in which they differed. In the case, for example, of an officer of the navy losing a limb, or being wounded, he received a pension of only 250l., while an officer of similar rank in the army received 300l. He should be glad to be informed of the reason of that distinction. There were other cases of a similar description, in which there was a marked difference between the two services. With respect to pensions granted to the widows of the officers in the navy, he wished to mention a distinction which was a real hardship: in the navy, an officer's widow was obliged to make affidavit, that she was not receiving, in any manner, an income double the amount of her pension. No such affidavit was required from an army officer's widow. The hon. gentleman then adverted to the difference between the half-pay granted to the officers in the navy, and to officers in the army holding corresponding rank. He wished to see the two services equalised in that respect. They had not, indeed, kept pace with each other in any respect. The pay of a lieutenant in the navy was 6s. 6d. a day one hundred and twenty years ago, and it was no more now—he believed it was less by sixpence. An hon. member, on a former night, when, he (Mr. Forbes) brought under the consideration of the House the claims of the navy, styled him the receiver-general of grievances:—he had no wish to assume that office, but at the same time he was anxious to correct a mistake which had gone abroad, as if he had derived his information only from anonymous letters. That was not the fact. He had derived it from verbal communications with all ranks of officers in the navy, from the admiral down to the midshipman. He had, indeed, received some anonymous letters, but even those he was requested not to show, lest the hand writing should be traced, and since the last discussion in that House, many of the persons who sent them, had communicated their names. He certainly should not be deterred from repeating the subject again and again, till greater justice was done to the navy.

believed that no man could oppose the principle, that the services of the navy and the army should be put upon the same footing. Their claims to the gratitude of the country were the same. But he contended, that the principle thus professed was not faithfully carried into execution. Why should a deduction be made from the pay of the navy for pensions to the widows of naval officers. That did not take place in the army. He wished to know out of what fund, beyond the deductions which had been mentioned, the widows of naval officers received their pensions; and out of what fund those of widows of officers in the army were paid? He suggested that length of service, and not rank alone, should form the measure of the pensions given to officers. He objected to the deductions made from the pensions of wounded naval officers, to the amount of 7½ per cent. under the head of the civil list. To this there was no parallel in the case of military officers. He thought the House bound in honour to set the two services really on the same footing.

said, that nothing could be more plausible than that both services should be placed on a perfect equality in all things. It had always been the wish and intention of government to effect this; but the more the House went into details, the more they would see the impossibility of equalizing, to outward appearance, every branch of the two services. As to the widows' pensions, the two services would not be on an equality, if the propositions of the hon. gentleman were admitted. In the one service a great capital was spent in promotion; in the other it was acquired without expense. In the army the mere interest of the pur- chase money of commissions amounted to more than the widow's pension; the price of a captain's commission was 1,500l., the interest on which would be 75l.; while the pension of a captain's widow was only 60l. The price of a majority was 2,600l., the interest on that sum was 130l., and the pension of a major's widow 75l. only. It was impossible, therefore, in this instance, to assimilate the two services, unless purchases were taken from the army or added to the navy. The hon. gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the promotion of navy lieutenants was slower than that of captains in the army. Many must necessarily stick at the rank of captain, inasmuch as there were ten captains to two majors.

The report was agreed to.

observed, that he was anxious in this last stage to protest against the adoption of the army estimates in their present form. The result had amply justified the opposition given to them in the first instance, when the reply made was, that the proper time for cutting down the estimates was in the committee. In that stage, however, many unanswerable objections were made without effect, as ministers resisted all reduction, maintaining that the House ought to be satisfied with their opinion, that the large military establishment was necessary, because the recommencement of hostilities was a possibility, however distant. In the staff only had any diminution been effected; and although the saving was only 40,000l. for the present year, it was enough to show that the estimates in general had been made out in a most careless and slovenly manner. He begged to repeat his strong objections to the ready employment of soldiers for civil purposes: within the last twenty-five years the guards who did daily duty within the city of London had been increased from between 6 and 700 to 8 and 900 men, though no sufficient reason could be assigned for placing new sentries over the people. His jealousy on this point had recently been greatly increased by observing, that on court-days one quarter of the town was placed under martial law, without any authority from the civil power. He begged to refer the House to a case that had occurred under lord chief justice Holt, to whom a message had been sent, requiring the attendance of one of his officers, to sanction the proceedings of the soldiery in quelling a riot in Holborn. The chief justice inquired what was to be done in case the mob did not disperse on the appearance of his officer, backed by the armed force: and the reply made by the person sent to demand the sanction was, that in that case the soldiers had authority to fire upon the people. "Have they so?" said lord Holt, "then take notice of what I say, for if there be one man killed, and you are brought before me for trial, I will take care that you and every soldier of your party shall be hanged." [Hear, hear!]. This expression was certainly warm, like others sometimes used by that great judge, who had once threatened not only to commit the Speaker, but the whole House of Commons. What he observed afterwards was, however, more important—"Go back," he added, "to those who sent you, and acquaint them that no officer of mine shall attend soldiers; and let them know, at the same time, that the laws of England are not to be executed by the sword: the matter belongs to the civil power, and you have nothing to do with it." He trusted that this opinion would have some weight with the House in introducing it to put a stop to a system by which England was rapidly sinking into the deplorable condition of the military despotisms of the continent.

The Report was then agreed to.