said, that in consequence of the advanced period of the session, he did not think it proper to urge forward a measure which went to occasion so fundamental a change in the law of the land, as the bill for the better security of the Liberty of the Press. This great advantage would attend its lying over, namely, that the attention of members might be turned towards the subject at leisure. Even within the last fortnight great prejudices had been removed from the minds of many hon. members, in consequence of their having investigated the merits of the measure. Convinced, as he was, that the more it was considered the more beneficial would appear the results to be expected from it, and pledging himself to bring the subject again under the consideration of the House early in the next session, he would now move that the bill be read a second time on that day three months—Ordered.

alluding to an advertisement which he had seen, for plans of the columns intended to be erected in commemoration of the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar, wished to know what were the intentions of his majesty's ministers with regard to the erection of these columns? He had heard that it was intended to expend 150,000l. on each. He hoped it was not the case; but, at all events, he would suggest that nothing farther should be done until next session. Indeed, the feeling of the country, in its present distressed state, was very general against the erection of columns at so great an expense. The House should recollect that the 300,000l. was only the estimate; but, in every probability, the expense would amount to half a million before the columns were finished. The circumstances of the country were not such as to bear this additional expenditure; and it was the less necessary, as it only went to commemorate victories which must ever live in the recollection of British subjects. He took that opportunity of giving notice, that he should take the sense of the House on the subject; in the mean time, he hoped that nothing would be done by ministers with regard to them.

observed, that it was not the intention of ministers to take any step towards the immediate erection of these columns before the next session. The right hon. member must have observed that the advertisement referred only to plans of these columns, which it was necessary to have from different artists, in order to have them considered as to their design and expense. These plans would be under the consideration of the treasury some time before they approved one, and when they did approve, it would be of that plan, which, being the best, was the least expensive. It would then be submitted for the consideration of the House next session; but, until then, the right hon. gentleman might rest assured no step would be taken to erect the columns. What had been done was merely to save time.

expressed his satisfaction at what he had heard. He had been induced to ask the question from having understood that it was intended to expend 300,000l. on the two columns.

observed, that if the right hon. gentleman found fault with the intended erection of these monuments, he should condemn the votes of the House, and not his majesty's ministers, who only wished to carry those votes into effect. If a sum was mentioned as the supposed expense, it was because it was impossible to get a plan or design of the intended columns unless some idea was given of the expense.

asked the chancellor of the exchequer, if ministers persisted in their intention of creating, in addition to the place of Irish vice-treasurer, that of a deputy vice-treasurer.

answered in the affirmative.

said, that this was creating a sinecure of 3,500l. a year. The only duty of the vice-treasurer was to countersign the warrants of the lord lieutenant to see that they were exactly conformable to the authority of parliament and the king's letters, and afterwards to see that the sums paid corresponded to the warrant. He had no duty to perform on this side of the water, and yet he was to have a seat in parliament, and a deputy to execute the duties of the office during his absence. The salary was larger than that which had been paid to the Irish chancellor of the exchequer, who had duties to discharge on both sides the water, and who was in consequence subjected to con- siderable expense. What was to be the salary of the deputy?

said, as the deputy was not intended to be a parliamentary officer, it was proposed to give him 1,000l. a-year.

conceived, that giving the 3,500l. a-year to an officer who was purely ministerial, who had no discretion and no power, and giving 1,000l. a-year in addition to a deputy to execute that duty, was one of the most shameless jobs that had ever come before parliament. If the House should sanction such a proposition, they would proclaim to the country that every declaration of the necessity of retrenchment made by them, was only intended for purposes of delusion.

could not see that shameless disregard of economy in this measure, which had been charged against ministers. The right hon. baronet had now seemed to admit that a vice-chancellor in Ireland was a necessary officer; the question therefore now reduced itself to a comparatively subordinate point, the amount of salary to be given to that officer. There was no analogy between the cases of Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland all orders emanated directly from government; but as a separate executive was to be continued in Ireland, there was no possibility of carrying it on, except by the ordering of payments through the medium of the vice-treasurer. As to the salary of the vice-treasurer, he would contend that the sum proposed was not more than sufficient. A gentleman of high rank and estimation in the country could alone adequately fill such a situation. The offices which it more immediately resembled were those of paymaster of the forces and treasurer of the navy. While the vice-treasurer of Ireland, 30 years ago, received from 10 to 11,000l. a year, surely it could not be thought that a vice-treasurer in the present times would be overpaid with 3,500l. a year. He was ready to admit that this was more than had been paid to the gentleman who, for the last three years, had executed the duties of chancellor of the Irish exchequer with so much ability; but then, in his opinion, that gentleman had been very much underpaid. The right hon. baronet had argued, that from the nature of the situation, it must become a sinecure; and he had contended, hat the creation of a new parliamentary officer was a violation of the act of queen Anne. But it would have been but fair to state, that in consequence of the present measure, out of six parliamentary offices, three only were retained. A deputy would be necessary, even if the vice-treasurer should be confined to a residence in Ireland at all times. He had stated the salary in contemplation to be given to the deputy at 1,000l.; but the whole of the vice-treasurer's office remained yet to be settled by the treasury of the united kingdoms, and this would come before parliament hereafter, along with the other parts of the new plan.

did not hesitate to call this the most shameless and profligate job that had ever been obtruded on the patience of the House. The bill proposed to appoint a vice-treasurer, with a salary of 3,500l. a year; it proposed a deputy with a salary of 1,000l. a year; and it proposed openly to violate the act of Anne, which rendered a person who held any new office incapable of a seat in the House. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that an individual of responsibility was required for the office: the truth was, that no responsibility whatever was attached to the office, the duties of which were nothing more than to countersign the warrants of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, and to see that they corresponded with the king's letter; and what extraordinary talent, what rank, what station, did this require? There was not a clerk in a merchant's office who was not as fully competent to the performance of this duty as the greatest man in that House. But the right hon. gentleman thinks it right that the person who performs this duty should have 3,500l. a year, and that he should retain his situation in parliament; and why? Was he to give any account to the House? He could give none whatever, for his office was purely ministerial. If any person could give an account, it was the secretary of the lord lieutenant: but this clerk (for a clerk he was to all intents) could give no account whatever, nor was he in any way responsible. This, then, was the whole of his duty, and for this he was to have 3,500l. a year; for this a deputy was to be appointed, and an act violated which was made to secure the dignity and independence of parliament. He should therefore move, that instead of 3,500l., 2,000l. be inserted, and that the clause enabling the person who held the office to sit in parliament be struck out. He entreated the House most seriously to consider the step they were about to take: at a time when the distress of the nation was greater than had ever been known, they were going to establish a new sinecure of 3,500l. a year. If such a measure were adopted, they must, as a necessary consequence, lose altogether the confidence of the country, who could not consider the professions of economy, so often repeated, in any other light than as a mockery of their sufferings. He then moved, that the sum of 2,000l. be substituted for that of 3,500l.

had heard only one new argument against the measure; and that was the enactments of the act of Anne against new offices: but the present bill put an end to eight old offices, and substituted only three in the place of them. Five lords of the treasury, a chancellor of the exchequer, and two secretaries, were now no longer maintained. If the consequence of this consolidation was the abolition of five offices, the right hon. gentleman would find it very difficult to raise arguments against the measure from such a reduction. The other argument advanced by the right hon. gentleman was, that the situation might be filled by a clerk: but would the right hon. gentleman apply this to the paymaster of the forces and the treasurer of the navy here? And yet the office in question was not one degree less important, inasmuch as the party who filled it had the control of the lord lieutenant's accounts, and the audit of the exchequer of Ireland. The right hon. gentleman indeed did not feel quite satisfied with the 2,000l. he had himself proposed; but thought that the same sum as was paid to the lords of the treasury might do. If any conclusion could be drawn from this, it applied equally to the great offices here: the duties of the treasurer of the navy were equally important with those assigned to this office. The right hon. baronet had said, that if 1,000l. a year was sufficient for the deputy, who would be required to perform the duty during half the year, 2,000l. would be enough for the principal, who would fulfil it the other half. This argument appeared to have no good foundation. The principal had not only half the duty, but the whole of the responsibility both of his own acts and those of his deputy.

said, that the logic of the right hon. gentleman was not conclusive. It was thus: parliament had abolished some unnecessary offices; ergo, they were bound to allow the ministers to create other unnecessary offices, and to violate a direct act of parliament. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the duties of the office—he would read the clause in the bill which described those duties. [Mr. P. then read the clause.] And yet this office was held up as equal to the great offices of the state ! Why the treasurer of the navy should have 4,000l. a year he did not know. There was no one so capable of answering the question as a right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Rose). That right hon. gentleman might very well deserve 4,000l. a year for former services, but why that salary should be permanently attached to the office, he did not see. The right hon. gentleman had that night assented to the statement of the secretary of Ireland, that the office of treasurer of the navy was not more important than that office which the bill before them created. Yet they would recollect that on a former occasion he had burst into a flame, on an imputation being thrown out that he received 4,000l. a year, for doing little or nothing. His statement of that night might be more correct than that of a former night. But, at any rate, they would see the spirit of the proposal—because the treasurer of the navy had 4,000l. a year for doing very little, a new officer was to be appointed, who was to have 3,500l a year fordoing as little or less.

thought it not a little surprising that the observations of the right hon. gentleman should be directed against that class of officers who received 4,000l. a year. [A laugh.] He could assure the right hon. gentleman that he did not make that allusion for the purpose of recriminating. He was aware that he received his pension in consideration of having relinquished his profession. But the treasurer of the navy had the same claim to his salary, and that was all he meant to insinuate.

declared, that he felt no desire to vindicate himself where there was no necessity. He received the sum of 4,000l. a year in consequence of having resigned the office of chancellor of Ireland, and that was the sum always granted in similar cases. He did not feel that he stood on the same footing with a person who received a salary for holding an office in which there was nothing to be done. If the right hon. gentleman did mean a reflection on him, which he could not suppose after his disavowal of it, he should have no objection to submit the charge, on its own grounds to the good sense of the House and of the country.

said, it was almost unnecessary for his right hon. friend to disclaim that he meant any improper insinuation. Those who knew him would as little suspect him of it as the right hon gentleman opposite; nor was there any insinuation in what had been said.—But when we were told that those who sat near the treasurer of the navy alone could inform the House why he enjoyed 4,000l. perannum, it was fair to reply that he enjoyed it by the same title which the right hon. gentleman enjoyed the same pension, namely under an act of parliament. Both held their emoluments as the reward of public services;—and he believed that few men had served longer, more laboriously, or more usefully than the treasurer of the navy. The right hon. gentleman had called up the statute of Anne, and said it was violated by admitting the vice treasurer of Ireland to sit in parliament. He could tell him there were three vice treasurers in the reign of queen Anne, with more than three times the salary now-proposed, who were every one admissible to parliament, and that without any one official duty to be performed by them in an English House of Commons.

said, that he held his office in a manner still less objectionable than the right hon. gentleman, as it came annually under the consideration of parliament. He felt that the salary of 4,000l. a year attached to his office, was a fair reward for persons who had served the public faithfully in the course of a long life, and had made no provision for the latter end of their days. He would admit, that the duty of the treasurer of the navy was not commensurate to the 4,000l. a year. But it was one of those offices that were established upon the principle of rewarding length of services. In other professions gentlemen could make fortunes, and provide for the decline of life, but there were very few offices under government in which it was possible to save 100l. a year.

was never more surprised at any thing that he had heard in the course of his life than at the speech of the right hon. gentleman. Nothing could excite his wonder more than to hear him claiming his present salary as a reward for his past services. The existence of the office was in former times defended on different and more rational grounds. It was said in 1786, that it was necessary to reserve some places to be conferred on those who, though required to do no service in the office whose duties they nominally performed, might, as privy-councillors, or advisors of government in other capacities, suggest wise measures, or accomplish important objects. When he held the situation of treasurer of the navy, he was free to confess that he regarded it as a sinecure; and that, having an active deputy in the paymaster, he had no official business of any consequence to execute; but he did not consider himself as entirely useless, or receiving the public money for nothing. He was always ready to assist the government, of which he was a member, in any other department where his exertions were called for, or were likely to be beneficial. Not such was the plea of the right hon. gentleman. He modestly pocketed his salary as a recompence for past exertions, not as a remuneration for present. He had been very pathetic on the ill-requited nature of the public service; he had told the House, that the emoluments of office were scarcely sufficient to afford present support, and quite inadequate to supply a surplus for the future wants of age and retirement. But the right hon. gentleman had just forgotten one thing—that before he became treasurer of the navy, he had already reaped his reward. He had come to the enjoyment of 7,000l. a year from the public before he stepped into the treasurership of the navy. The right hon. gentleman, it could not be denied, had got a strong swallow. He could receive 7,000l. a-year and yet reserve an appetite for 4,000l. more in the shape of sinecure. The right hon. gentleman had once been questioned on his emoluments, and owned the moderate receipt of 7,000l. a-year of the public money; but this was all as a reward for past services. The right hon. gentleman could not but plead the same merits for all his family; and while he claimed emoluments for himself on the ground of past exertions, he anticipated the reward of his son. He made the public provide for him before he did any thing for the public, and had a place ready for him nearly as soon as he was born. The right hon. gentleman had been long employed in the service of the country, and had discharged his duties zealously and faithfully; but the public owed him nothing; there were no arrears of debt unpaid. He had done well for the public, and the public had done well for him. He had, in addition to his own rewards, secured for his son the reversion of the clerkship of the parliament, and all the patronage connected with it. He had secured for himself and his two sons places and emoluments worth nearly 20,000l. a year. This was the extraordinary liberality of the country to the right hon. gentleman; this was the mode in which his services were rewarded. The noble lord and his colleagues took great credit to themselves for their moderation and forbearance in limiting the salary of the Irish vice-treasurer to 3,500l. The present appeared to him the most deliberate, outrageous, and unjustifiable job that any set of ministers had ever the boldness to propose. He would go the length of calling it scandalous, as be believed that was a parliamentary word, than which he was allowed no stronger. The chancellor of the exchequer had made such a statement as could leave a doubt on the mind of no impartial person. He had said, that it was necessary to have a person as vice-treasurer, who might be useful to the ministers by his abilities and eloquence in that House, and it would be foolish to expect assistance without paying for it. They now required all the aid they could find in all quarters. They had lately a reimportation from abroad in the person of a right hon. gentleman, who was to be paid for his support 5,000l. a year. They were now to have another from the west of the Channel, and to pay him 3,500l. As the country was to pay this sum professedly for the benefit of this gentleman's parliamentary talents, it might be proper to institute a parliamentary inquiry into their extent and usefulness. Were they worth 3,500l. a year? There should be an estimate of them, that we might not be cheated in the bargain we made, or the sum we paid for them. But if it was necessary that Ireland should have her dignity maintained by a vice-treasurer, why not keep him in Ireland? What was the use of him, unless he resided in the country where the sphere of his duties lay? He was to be a check, forsooth, on the lord-lieutenant; but what became of the dignity of the lord-lieutenant thus checked by him? Nay, he was to leave the lord-lieutenant to be checked even by his deputy! At a moment when the country was weighed down with taxation, it was extraordinary that any set of ministers should dream of adding to their burthens by creating a salary of 3,500l. a year. This was a salary to one who had to support no rank, who had to maintain no state, who had to exhibit no representation, and consequently required no consideration for splendour or expense. He might live in an ordinary lodging in Dublin, and perform all his duties as efficiently as if he enjoyed a palace. He was merely to perform duties that any man of common education was perfectly able to execute. But then ministers were not contented with giving him a great salary, and supposing him a person of abilities, but they were also to give him a deputy. His business lay in Ireland; but when he came over to enlighten the British parliament, he was to intrust his office to a deputy; who was likewise to have a salary of 1,000l. a year. This deputy would represent, after a year or two, that his duties were very heavy, that his principal stayed away long from Ireland, and might work upon the gentle and yielding disposition of the chancellor of the exchequer till he obtained the desired increase. Ministers had now got nearly to the salary of the treasurer of the navy and his deputy. Can they believe that the country will view this without disgust? How many poor clerks must be dismissed to make up the salary of this officer, to compensate for the expenses of this vile, rank, coarse, vulgar job. He could bestow upon it no other epithets. Some of the lords of the former treasury, who had 1,200l., might have been prevailed upon to accept of this office for the same amount of emolument. If ministers wished to proportion the salary to that of other offices, why go to sinecures? Could they not find other offices worthy of furnishing a rule for the salary? The privy seal had 3,000l. a year, the master of the mint 3,000l. a year, the chancellor of the exchequer 2,500l. Why was government to import a vice-chancellor from Ireland for 3,500l.? Let the House consult its character and its dignity, and resist this infamous job.

thought 2,000l., a year was quite a sufficient salary for this office.

said, that he could not entertain propositions like those of the right hon. gentleman, that the responsible offices of the country were to be set up as if by auction, and that those who were disposed to take the least for their services, were to be preferred. It had always been considered in Mr. Burke's plans of reform, that the salaries of high public offices should be estimated by a regard to the due influence of the Crown, as well as by a re- ference to the duties to be performed. It would be impossible otherwise to obtain men of rank and consideration to fill these situations. The right hon. gentleman had employed many arguments ad captandum; but he would remind the House, that when his friends were in power they gave no practical instances of their doctrine, which was only enforced when their minds were enlightened by the climate of opposition. That the present appointment was framed upon a view of a just balance of influence and not on the principle of invading the independence of parliament or the liberties of the country, was sufficiently manifested by the fact, that the operation of this bill would be to abolish eight parliamentary offices, and to create only three. It was, however, an unwise principle of economy which would always measure the salary precisely by the duties of each particular office. It had been at all times deemed more advisable, that while some situations were underpaid with respect to the labour attached to them, others should be overpaid, and constitute ulterior rewards for a long period of able services. It was more necessary that some appointments of station and dignity should be maintained in Ireland than in Scotland, because there was an executive in Ireland, and because the existence of a privy council in that country necessarily created a diversity of public business requiring the attention and assistance of eminent individuals. Without this office the Irish government must be left with no other support than that of his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel.) The present office was not new: the financial business of Ireland had been formerly conducted by three vice-treasurers, each with a salary of 3,500l.

observed, that by the act of 1807, the administration of that day abolished no less than 38 sinecure offices in the customs of Ireland.

said, the offices in question were not abolished at once, but were only to expire with those who held them. However this might affect the patronage of subsequent administrations, it had not at all reduced that of the then existing ministry, who also took care to create some new offices of rather an extraordinary nature.

observed, that the predecessors of that ministry had granted all these offices in reversion.

protested against the measure as a scandalous job, by which ministers seemed determined, instead of mitigating, to mock the sufferings of a loyal people.

could not help saying that he thought this a very unjustifiable demand upon the public purse. It was no argument to him that because eight unnecessary offices had ceased, three unnecessary ones ought to be created; and he could not doubt but that a salary of 2,000l. a year would be sufficiently sought after by persons competent to discharge all the duties of the office.

defended the clause against the observation, that it violated the 6th of Anne. His own office of surveyor of the woods and forests, as well as that of the president of the board of control, had been Created since that act, and both had been made compatible with a seat in parliament.

reprobated the clause as disgraceful to the character of the House.

had listened attentively to the debate, but had not been able to decide how he ought to vote. He had considered himself as a juror whose verdict should be governed by evidence, but all he had heard had only left him more completely in the dark. He deprecated as odious the comparison between what was received by his right hon. friend, the late chancellor of Ireland, and the emoluments of a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rose), who had avowed that he received more than he deserved.

begged to ask, whether the hon. member on whom the new office was to be conferred was then in the House, as he could not think it decent that he should vote upon the question?

condemned the mode so frequently adopted by the noble lord opposite, of recriminating upon that side, as to its conduct when in power, instead of defending himself from charges that were urged against him. Even if the noble lord could prove all which he asserted, it would be no argument in justification of his own conduct. With regard to the auditor's bill, however, it was a little unfortunate for the noble lord, that that bill passed through parliament without one dissentient voice. With respect to the question more immediately before them, he thought it one to which that House ought not to accede. Much observation had been made upon the act of queen Anne, but certainly when he recollected what had occurred within the last eight and forty hours, he could not feel greatly disposed to rely upon any interpretation of that act, coming from the other side of the House. They who contended that accepting the treasuryship of Greenwich hospital did not vacate a seat in parliament, might with equal propriety maintain that the creation of a new office was compatible with a seat in that House. The real spirit of the act, however, was, that no new office should be tenable with a seat in parliament. He hoped the question would not be carried. The session had opened with professions of economy from the throne, and now it was to conclude with the creation of a sinecure office of 3,500l. a year. With what face could gentlemen meet their constituents after having assented to such a job, at a time when the table of the House was loaded with petitions for economy and retrenchment.

wished to know in what would consist the responsibility of the vice-treasurer? It appeared, that he was merely to countersign the warrants for the issue of money, previously signed by the lord-lieutenant. Was he to have any control over the lord-lieutenant? Could he refuse his signature? If he could not, and if he possessed no control, he should like to be informed as to the nature of his responsibility?

was astonished at the total want of argument on the other side of the House. He congratulated the House and the country on the reduction of the several offices in Ireland, which the noble lord had alluded to, but in fact these reductions were the necessary consequences of the consolidation of the two exchequers. He considered that as the chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland had been remunerated with 3,000l. annually during his office, there was no reason whatever for attaching an additional 500l. to this new appointment. Supposing, for example, the same individual to be appointed to this new office, he did not conceive there was any propriety in increasing the salary. Looking on this transaction as a mere job, he trusted it would excite the disgust and indignation of the House, as he had no doubt it would excite those of the country.

The House then divided: For the Amendment, 66; Against it, 108.

moved, that the clause rendering the vice-treasurer eligible to sit in parliament be left out.

opposed the amendment, on the general ground that several offices which might be held by members were abolished by the bill.

said, that the clause was nothing more nor less than recognising this new office to be a mere sinecure.

though against the salary, was in favour of this clause. As so large a salary was given, it was to be presumed that a man of talents would be appointed to the office, and it was advisable that parliament should have the benefit of them.

was surprised at the inconsistent conduct of the hon. gentleman, in first voting for a small salary to the vice-treasurer, and then voting for his being a member of the House, on the ground of his having got a large one. What was this but an invitation to ministers to be extravagant?

expressed his surprise that gentlemen whose efforts had abolished the income tax should now vote in support of every scheme of extravagance. If it was necessary to have a man of talents to fill the office, it was not in that House that his talents should be employed. He pronounced the whole a rank and unconstitutional job.

said, that though he had voted for the salary, he should vote against this clause.

was surprised at the inconsistency of his hon. friend, and hoped he would compensate for his vote that night by another on some future occasion.

besought the committee to think what they were now doing, as, by granting the vice-treasurer a seat in the House, they were burthening the country with an additional expense of 1,000l. a year for a deputy. They were also abstracting him from his duties on the other side of the water, and bringing him here for no other purpose than to support the treasury bench.

The committee divided: For the amendment, 57: Against it, 107. The House being resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Monday.