, in moving that there be laid before the House a List of the Fees allowed to be taken by the Provisional Assignee, the Brokers, Messengers, and other officers of the Insolvent Court, together with their aggregate amount during each year, from 1814 to 1829, observed, that it was understood when this court was appointed, that the public were to be relieved from the payment of fees of every description except to a very small amount. He was however informed, that the payment of fees fell very heavy on the suitors of that Court, and as the Act was about to expire, he thought it quite right that the House should be put into possession of all the information which could be collected on the subject. Returns ordered.

staled, that he should likewise move for returns tending to show the evil effects of the existing Corn-laws, which he presumed it was intended to submit to the-revision of Parliament during the present Session. If, indeed, no more efficient Member could be induced to bring the subject before the House, it was his own intention to do so before the expiration of the Session. In moving for the Returns now required, he wished to enable Parliament to estimate the probable amount of our revenue, if only a moderate duty, such as he had formerly recommended, should be laid on. Under such a duty, the revenue derived from this branch of trade would have amounted, he believed, to about 1,190,000l. from the passing of the 9th of George IV. up to 1829, whereas it fell short of that sum, under the existing system nearly, 1,000,000l. sterling. He therefore moved for returns of the amount of the quantity of Wheat, Barley, and Rye, consumed in Great Britain during the intervening years, together with accounts of the average of Prices and Duties paid on the same, and also returns of the Importation of Foreign Corn into Great Britain, since the year 1815, stating the aggregate quantity of all sorts imported, distinguishing those importations which did not pay duty —together with the whole amount of Revenue received on the importation of foreign corn and meal in each year, since 1815. Ordered.

in moving for a copy of the Treasury Minute respecting the retired allowances of the officers engaged in the late lottery establishments, stated, that he understood there were five individuals receiving an income of 1,473l. for life, being 375l. each; and that even the messenger, according to a document already laid before the House, had 28l. a year. It was the more to be objected to as those persons each held, at present, offices under the Crown. In the existing state of the Dead Weight, it was important that information should be laid before Parliament of every case similar to that, by which it would be seen whether or not the Government were pursuing its promised system of economy. The return he meant to move for would shew the services of Wm. Duere Adams, and the other persons to whom the Minute of December 8th, 1829, granted retired allowances, and whether the persons who enjoyed those allowances held any situation under the Crown. The Return ordered.

presented a Petition from the occupiers of land in the hundred of Gosford, praying for the Repeal of the Malt and Beer duties.

wished to take that opportunity of explaining what he had said a few nights before. He had then stated, that in his opinion the removal of the Beer duties would be a great benefit to the public brewers; but he meant that opinion to apply solely to brewers, and no other class of persons. He knew that a great difference of opinion existed on the subject; but he had been very cautious in delivering his own sentiments. It had been said, however, that he sacrificed the publicans, because he did not at the same time state their claim to protection. He had in fact advocated their claims both in the House and in the Committee; he had always supported, and never compromised their interest, though he had also a duty to perform to the public, which he would discharge, undismayed by the threats of either individuals, or bodies of men. The publicans, however, being of opinion that they would be injured by the Beer trade being thrown open, he had been attacked in their behalf by a Newspaper, probably unknown, to the Members of that House, but much circulated among publicans, "The Morning Advertiser:" that attack contained a threat that he should be made to feel that it was necessary to support the publicans. He had been connected with that body for thirty years, and he should have thought that they knew him well enough by this time to know that threats could have no weight with him, though he had every inclination to favour their wishes. He was accused too of having combined with his right hon. friend to take off the Beer duties, and regulate the licenses. He believed that it was hardly necessary for him to say that such was not the case, and he had no other wish on the subject than to see the publicans far less aggrieved than they imagine themselves likely to be. He had always expressed his opinion that the measure proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be of great benefit to the public, while it would not injure the licensed victuallers. As he had always used every exertion in his power in their favour, he hoped the House would excuse him for having thus expressed his opinions.

wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to refund the duty on Beer to those who had a stock on hand; otherwise those persons, he conceived, would be placed at a great disadvantage by the intended abolition, of duty, as compared with those who would not purchase stock till after the 10th of October. If the drawback were not allowed, only a very small stock of Beer would be kept up, and none would be brewed but for immediate consumption. The consequences too would be injurious to the agricultural interest, for the sale of old Barley, for the purpose of Malting, would be entirely stopped.

contended, that throwing open the licensing system would be highly injurious to the vested interest of that numerous and respectable body—the publicans—and he hoped that the duties might be taken off Beer, without at the same time doing away with the licensing system. He wished to see the former measure tried by itself.

, in reply to the hon. Member, begged leave to say, that the object he had in view in repealing the tax on Beer—namely, the interests of the large majority of the people—would be defeated unless he could at the same time throw open the Beer-licensing system. If that were not done, the abolition of the duties on Beer could only benefit the dealers in Beer. He could not take too early the opportunity of stating, that he considered the freedom of the trade in Beer to be essential to the abolition of the duties on Beer. He did not deny that the free sale of Beer would be a partial inconvenience to publicans; but he was bound not to consult any interests but those of the public at large. In reply to the hon. Member for Wiltshire, (Mr. Benett) he begged leave to state, that although those who had a stock on hand might be inconvenienced by the intended abolition of the duty on Beer, still it was deemed the best course to have no refunding, and let the Act of repeal come in force on the 10th of October. The interests of the people at large were the rule of his conduct, and not the advantages or disadvantages of individuals. He should be certainly ready to be brought before the Committee; but he must warn Members against adopting the exaggerated views of interested parties out of the House.

wished to know if the situation of those who took out no licenses would not be better than that of the public brewers.

expressed his hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not depart from his plans, or if he did, that he would couple the repeal of the Malt tax with that of the Beer tax.

, in presenting Petition from Manchester, praying for the abolition of all taxes which enhance the price of the necessaries of life, and impede the national prosperity, took the opportunity of declaring that, although he was anxious to give relief to the people, he could not vote either for the Motion of the hon. Member, or the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, on which the debate was again to take place to-morrow night. He wished to call the attention of the House to the petition which he held in his hand. It was signed by upwards of 13,000 people, and was agreed to at a public meeting, convened for the purpose. He should have felt great difficulty in believing that so much distress existed in Manchester, had he not been assured of the character of those individuals who had borne testimony to the extreme sufferings of the poor. There were many points, however, on which he could not agree with the petitioners. They ascribed our great distress to the change in the currency, the profuse expenditure for the army and navy, and the high salaries given to every public servant, which the petitioners considered quite disproportionate to the present value of money. He agreed with these petitioners that taxation was unequal, but he thought, not with standing the reduction of taxation which had been made by his Majesty's Ministers, for which he felt very grateful, that a much larger reduction must yet be made. The present distress was, in particular, complained of by the shop-keepers, who suffered very much from the general pressure. Not finding any thing like the same demand as formerly, they were gradually sinking to decay. The petitioners earnestly prayed for a large reduction of taxation, for the removal of every monopoly, and that the expenditure of the Government may be reduced to what it was in 1793. On the whole, he could not do otherwise than warmly support the prayer of the petition, though he did not agree to all its statements. In conclusion he would repeat, that, though as anxious as any man to relieve the national distress, he could not vote for either committee of inquiry, because he thought no good could result from them. Erroneous impressions would be caused, and hopes excited only to be disappointed.

said, that although there might be various opinions as to the cause of the present distress, no person denied that distress existed to a great extent. He knew that the people of Manchester were exposed to much suffering, though the distress was not so great as it had been represented. He knew also that they were extremely desirous, as he was, of obtaining every possible reduction of taxation, and of putting an end to every monopoly, particularly to the monopoly of the Corn Trade and of the East-India Company. The expectation that the last would be abolished was very strong in the manufacturing districts. If the hopes of the people there were disappointed, they would be very likely to emigrate in large numbers, and carry their capital with them. There was an impression abroad, indeed statements had been made to that effect in the newspapers, that there was something like partiality in the investigation going on into the East India Company's Charter. The East India Company were raking up every instance of bad conduct in the East Indies for many years past, with a view to excite prejudices against alteration, and they, as well as the Board of Control, were opposed to the liberal policy of Lord William Bentinck. He also took that opportunity of saying, that he had not represented the other evening that there was no distress in the manufacturing districts, as the noble Lord (the Member for Northamptonshire) had seemed to suppose. He had on the contrary expressly stated, that among the hand-loom weavers the distress was very severe.

explained, that he had not attributed to the hon. Member the opinion that there was no distress in the manufacturing districts.

presented a Petition from Patrick M'Dermott, John Martin, and Miles M'Dermott, complaining of the conduct of the Lord Mayor of Dublin in removing the Pig-market of that city. The petitioners had been forcibly ejected from the market, though the law authorities of Ireland had given an opinion in their favour. They had a right to sell Pigs in the market.

said, that the Mayor was anxious to submit his conduct to investigation. The law opinions obtained by the petitioners were given on their own partial and incorrect representations. They had no right to sell pigs in Smithfield, which was held for cattle, exclusive of pigs; and the number of cattle being very great, pigs were kept out of the market.

was sure that the conduct of the Lord Mayor was dictated by a regard to the public interest. That magistrate wished that the matter should be investigated before a proper tribunal, and he was sure that an Irish court of justice would be willing to afford its protection to the animals (bulls) for which the market was intended.

next presented a Petition from Stephen Fox Dixon, complaining of the conduct of the Corporation of Dublin in turning him out of a Coal-meter's situation, and of the bill which gave the Corporation power so to act. He had been a Coal-meter from 1806, and had received his share of the fees which were legally appropriated by the Coal-meters, through whom the corporation levied a lax on the public of several thousand pounds a-year. It had, indeed, proceeded so far that the interference of a court of justice had been demanded, which decided that the imposition ought not to be levied. According to the corporation, however, it was entitled to regulate the business of the Coal-meters by an Act of Parliament. In the course of these proceedings the corporation had turned the petitioner out of his situation, causing him considerable loss; and as he. had no means of redress, he applied to the House. The prayer of his petition was, that the House would amend the Act by which the Corporation of Dublin was enabled to commit this oppression.

said, he would only observe that the petitioner had been appointed to his office by the guild of merchants, whose right to make the appointment had been recognized for several centuries. In consequence of complaints made against the petitioner, his conduct had been subjected to examination before a competent authority, the charges were regularly made, time was given him to answer them, and having failed to answer them he was suspended from his office, which suspension he illegally resisted. His conduct was then brought before the Lord Mayor and Board of Dublin, and after council had been heard on both sides, they came to the decision of which the petitioner complained. His complaint therefore, was, in fact, an appeal from an authorized tribunal, to the House of Commons. With respect to the amount of the tax levied on the public for metage, which the hon. Member had referred to, there was no just cause of complaint; as it was not more than an adequate reward for the service of protecting the public in the supply of Coals. The duties for which the fees were levied were arduous, and required the Meters to be both intelligent and zealous. As he believed the subject would again come under the consideration of the House, he would not enter further into it. Of the individual, he would repeat that he had a full and fair investigation, and that, failing to exculpate himself from the charges, he was deservedly dismissed.

, in presenting a Petition, very numerously and respectably signed, from the in-habitants of the city of Drogheda, praying for a Repeal of the Act of Union, through which they alleged that Ireland was suffering incalculable mischief, observed, that the petitioners referred to the total disregard shewn by the United Parliament to the local interests of Ireland, as a proof of their assertions. The Sub-letting Act, the Vestries' Act, the disfranchising of the 40s. freeholders were all passed in contempt of the local interests of that country. Jobs were encouraged, and grievances un-redressed. The colonies had local legislatures, but Ireland was governed by the English Parliament. He moved that the Petition be brought up.

as we understood, denied that the Petition expressed the sense of the influential portion of the inhabitants of Drogheda; and adverting to a petition presented the other evening, by Mr. O'Connell, respecting the abuses in the Charitable Foundations of Drogheda, which the hon. Gentleman had stated to be worth twenty thousand pounds a year, accusing the corporation of misappropriating funds to that amount, he declared, that the hon. Gentleman had come to erroneous conclusions from very ill-founded premises. He was distinctly authorized to deny the hon. Member's charge; he had inquired into the circumstances, and that charge was without foundation.

thought, that a petition for the repeal of the Union with Ireland, mischievous and absurd as it was, seemed also so clearly an attack on the principles of the Constitution, of which that Union now formed a part, that he for one should call on the House to reject the Petition at once. For that purpose he should now move that the Petition be read. No Member for Scotland would venture to rise in that House, and propose a repeal of the Union with Scotland; and yet could any Member say what was the difference between that Act and the Union Act of Ireland. It was no party question, but one which involved the integrity of the King's dominions. It was a violation of constitutional law, which no man could gainsay, who was not an enemy and a traitor to his country. He moved that the Petition be distinctly and audibly read.

saw no objection to the Petition being received. There was no Parliamentary law which forbade it; and as to its prayer attacking the Constitution, they ought to recollect that they received petitions against the Parliament itself, which was also a part of the Constitution. The Union was an act of the Legislature, which the Legislature might repeal. He did not say that it would be prudent or politic to review that measure, but he protested against the doctrine that there was any law or practice which made the presentation of such a petition an impropriety.

, adverting to the petition presented by the hon. Member for Clare, from the City of Drogheda, on a former evening, said, he was instructed to say that the statements of the hon. Member respecting the Charitable Fund of the Corporation— taken, of course, from that petition—were wholly unfounded. The Corporation challenged inquiry, and was willing to submit to the most rigid investigation.

thought, the question respecting the repeal of the Union with Ireland of too much importance to be disposed of hastily; it involved the dismemberment of his Majesty's dominions, and therefore he should move, that the debate on the Petition be adjourned till Wednesday next.

confessed he did not feel much surprise at the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Lockhart). and the hon. Member for Plympton (Sir C. Wetherell) respecting the propriety of receiving a petition in support of a project so mad and so absurd—so utterly destructive of the prosperity of Ireland, and so much calculated to injure the integrity of the Empire—as that of a repeal of the Act of Union. He repeated, he was not surprised at the opinions of these hon. Members, but at the same time he doubted whether it would be proper to depart from the general Parliamentary rule, and refuse to receive the Petition. He did not apprehend that the Petition proposed a diminution of the Empire, or a separation of Ireland from the control and government vested in the Sovereign of this country. Ireland was a portion of the British Empire; the King of England was also the King of Ireland before any Act of Union was thought of: and the Petition, he supposed, merely prayed that the two countries should be placed with respect to each other in the same situation as they were before the Act of Union was passed. He doubted, therefore, whether they could, according to the forms of Parliaments, reject the Petition; but while he gave his vote for the reception of the Petition, he could not find terms strong enough to express his reprobation of the prayer of that petition, or his sense of the renewal of attempts to disturb the minds of the ignorant portion of the people by a representation of advantages to result from the possession of a Parliament in Ireland. The sentiments of the people of both countries had been freely and fairly expressed in the formation of the Union between the two countries. That Union was finally consolidated by the repeal of all those disabilities under which the great portion of the inhabitants of that country laboured, in comparison with those of England; and he repeated, that he could not find terms to express the strong disgust and reprobation with which he viewed the attempts made to separate them. When all good men were congratulating themselves on the return of that tranquillity which they sought to promote, and which had followed the healing measure of last year, when all denominations of Irishmen were allowed free access to every department of the State; when advantages had been conferred on them, such as they never before possessed, it was too much that all the old feelings of discord were to be revived for the gratification of some individuals, by such injurious and incorrect assumptions as formed the basis of that petition. At the same time that he could not too strongly express his abhorrence of its prayer and its object, he saw no reason for refusing to receive the Petition.

was very sorry that the discussion which took place on another petition should have been mixed up with the very important question now before the House. He believed that the hon. Member for Drogheda was not present at the time the former petition was presented. If he had been, he would have known that he (Mr. O'Connell) did not say the revenues for the purposes of charity in the hands of the Corporation amounted to 20,000l. a year, or anything like it. He merely said that properties belonging to the Charities had been alienated and disposed of, which, if they were to let now, would produce 20,000l. a year, and that even still there were sufficient funds left in the hands of the Corporation for charitable purposes if they were properly administered. The petition was signed by some of the most respectable of those persons whom the hon. Member, no doubt, thought it an honour to represent. As to the question of the petition for the dissolution of the Legislative Union with Ireland, he totally differed from the hon. Member for Plympton, with respect to the regularity of that petition, and the object for which it prayed. He did not see any reason for depriving Ireland of a separate legislature, any more than Canada, Halifax, or Jamaica, where independent Representatives were permitted to deliberate on the local interests of the people. This he thought was as advantageous to the one country as to the other; and he believed the day was not far distant when the friends of Ireland and England would unite in their consent to the repeal of the Union; and that it would be hailed as an advantage by the best friends of both countries. Ireland, from the moment it obtained an independent legislature, rose in power and importance; improving its agriculture, and extending its manufactures with greater rapidity than had ever been exhibited by any other country in the same time. But the advantages of that situation were afterwards lost. The opinions spread abroad by the French Revolution, which created divisions between man and man, unhappily excited a rebellion which paved the way for the Union. The new-born energies of Ireland were laid low by her own dissensions, and the Act of Union had ever since prevented the revival of them. In forming that Union, the opinions and feelings of the people of Ireland were not taken into consideration, nor were the good sense and interests of the people of Eng- land fairly consulted. His opinion was, that if England wanted consumers for her productions, Ireland should be possessed of an independent legislature, for that alone could restore the prosperity of her people. As for the unfortunate petitioners, who had evoked such a storm of indignation, and who were ranked as traitors and enemies, he must say, that they were as patriotic and as loyal as their opponents. They were as honest in the opinions they entertained, which he shared, as any of the hon. Members who espoused very different opinions. At all events he would say, that he had heard no reason why a local legislature would not be as advantageous for Ireland, as for Canada or Jamaica.

again declared, that a petition praying to dissolve the Union with Ireland was something little short of treason, and insisted that it should not be received. If the hon. Member for Clare thought the Act of Union should be repealed, let him move for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose, and he would see how the House would meet it. He thought he could guess its fate; but he objected now, on the threshold, to the reception of this petition, which was a sort of sidewind,—a subterraneous movement,—to do by a dark, insidious course what no hon. Member would have the hardihood to propose specifically.

expressed an opinion, that the hon. Member for Plympton was mistaken in the judgment he pronounced with respect to the Petition. He saw no reason why the House should depart from its usual courtesy on that occasion: when any hon. Member brought forward a measure to dismember the Kingdom, it would be time enough to raise the voice of reprobation, or to move an act of impeachment.

saw no objection to the Petition being received, although he condemned its object.

was also in favour of its being received.

thought the people of Ireland should take care how they presented sectarian petitions of this kind, because it might happen that those who passed the measure of last Session for the relief of the Roman Catholics, would, from such petitions, see the necessity of repealing that Act, and excluding all Catholics from the House. It was time too for the Protestants of Ireland to think of moving for the repeal of that Bill, to prevent their being handed over, bound hand and foot, to the Catholic population of that country.

said, that whatever might have been his opinion of the Union formerly, he was convinced that the repeal of the Act now would be productive of the most mischievous effects. It was his deliberate opinion, and he spoke it advisedly, than any attempt to cause its repeal now would be fraught with the destruction of Ireland, and the deep injury of England. He deprecated the remarks of the hon. Member, calculated as they were to interfere with that harmony and spirit of good feeling which he was delighted to find had so rapidly followed the passing of last year's beneficent measure. Ireland was now tranquillized and prosperous by the removal of all political disabilities, and it was most desirable that no subject of agitation should be introduced there. He hoped the House would receive the Petition, and put an end to that unavailing conversation.

was averse to the adjournment of the debate on a question which could not be considered important after what they had heard, but as the Petition was respectfully worded, he saw no objection to its being received.

observed, that if the feelings of the people of Ireland were really averse to the continuance of the Union, he was persuaded that those feelings could not be put down by the rejection of the present Petition; which would be the sure method of kindling a still stronger spirit of hostility in their minds. For his part, however, he did not think that the existence of such feelings was to be apprehended to any great extent. The interests of all classes in Ireland were so identified with the continuance of the Union, that he was satisfied that there was no general disposition to attack it, and he trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Clare would abandon the wild speculation in which he had embarked on that subject, and would devote his talents to some better and more useful purpose.

said, he was one of those who wished to cement and strengthen the union between the two countries. At the same time he thought that feelings and opinions had been ascribed to his hon. and learned friend, the Member for Clare, without any just cause. As to the Petition, it appeared to him that to reject it would be to put an end to one of the most valuable rights of the subject. He was much surprised to hear his hon. and learned friend who opposed the Petition, state opinions so contrary to those which he had at other times advanced in the House. He hoped the amendment would be withdrawn. He was astonished at the expressions of reprobation which the right hon. Gentleman had used towards his hon. and learned friend, the Member for Clare. So he understood them. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that to promote the separation of the two countries would be most injurious; but the right of the people to tender their opinions to the House upon the subject was quite a distinct question.

, in explanation, denied that he had ever contended against the right of the people to express their opinions on that or any other subject. On the contrary, he had contended for that right. But while he had admitted the right, he had also declared that he could not find language strong enough to express his reprobation of the doctrines which the petitioners maintained. With respect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said of the separate legislatures of Jamaica, Halifax, and Canada, it must be remembered that, although they had separate legislatures, they were still parts of the United Kingdom. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Clare, if he knew anything of the names that were affixed to the Petition? They appeared to have been signed in a moment of conviviality rather than at a serious meeting of freeholders. For instance, there was the name of "Paddy Bray," followed by that of "Billy Powder Bray."

said, that those were the names of two of the registered freeholders of the town in which the meeting was held.

, yielding to what appeared to be the general feeling of the House, withdrew his amendment.

, in moving that the Petition should lie on the Table, took the opportunity of refuting the charge that it was a Petition of a sectarian character, or concealed anything, or sought to attain by covert means, an object which the petitioners did not dare avow. He had not had anything to do with the formation of the Petition; it had been sent him by post, and he knew nothing of its existence till he received it. In presenting it to the House, he had stated its contents, scarcely offering any opinion of his own on the measure it alluded to, till other Members had made their remarks on it, and on him. Adverting to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dover, he begged to observe to him, that even if that event which the hon. Member seemed to consider so impossible—a repeal of the Union with Ireland—were to take place, it would give to Ireland a House of Peers 156 in number, not six of whom would be Roman Catholics. He repeated, therefore, that the Petition was not a sectarian one. One of the signatures was that of a Protestant. As to the question respecting the repeal of the Union, he was not aware that any expressions had fallen from him on the subject which could be construed into a disposition that he sought illegally to effect that object. It would, indeed, be unbecoming in him to use any other than constitutional language on such a subject; but nothing under Heaven should deter him from looking forward to what would be at once highly useful and beneficial to Ireland, and not at all injurious to this country.

said, he considered that the repeal of the Union would bestow the government of Ireland on the Roman Catholics.

, in answer to a question from Sir John Newport, as to the intentions of his Majesty's Government to impose a duty on Tobacco in Ireland, said, that he had, on a former evening, stated that it was the intention of Government to place a duty on Tobacco grown in Ireland; and he had hoped that the bill on the subject would have been before the House at the present time; but delay had been occasioned in arranging the necessary details. He could assure the hon. Member that the parties interested were perfectly aware of the intention of Government to lay a duty on Irish Tobacco; for it had been expressed in a previous Session, when a bill for that purpose before the House was withdrawn. Since then, several applications had been made to Government to ascertain what it intended to do on the subject, and they had received for answer that it was the intention of Government to impose a duty on Irish Tobacco.

, adverting to the question of the Deccan Prize Money, begged to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one' of the trustees for its distribution, in what state that property now was, as great anxiety existed on the part of many of the claimants to know when it was probable they would receive the remainder of their dividends.

said, that after the appointment of the trustees, they were anxious to begin the payments at as early a period as possible. Not being able, however, to get the prize lists without a reference to India, the consequence was, that their progress was impeded; and the first payment was not made until September, 1826. The sum of 230,000l. was then drawn for and distributed to the actual captors, both in the army and navy; except about 8,000l., which was paid over to Chelsea Hospital. The whole question was subsequently again brought under the consideration of the proper authorities, and it was decided that the Marquis of Hastings and the grand army were entitled to share in the Deccan prize money. There being no lists in this country, a Committee of Officers was appointed to give the necessary information, and to verify it. It was understood that the whole of the sums amounted to about 800,000l., and the whole would have been paid, but for a communication from certain native bankers at Bombay, stating that a portion of the property belonged, not to the Peishwa, but to natives, subjects of this country. The Supreme Court of Judicature decided in favour of the natives. It was impossible, therefore, to draw the whole sum; 448,000l. however, was drawn, and distributed to the Marquis of Hastings and the grand army, with the exception of 20,000l., which was paid over to Chelsea Hospital. The disposition of the remainder was referred to the consideration of the Privy Council, and the question would probably be determined in two or three months. Should it be decided in favour of the army of India, the trustees would immediately proceed to the distribution of it. The exact amount could not be exactly stated at the present moment; for there were sums arising in India to be added to it; but he believed he might state, that before the termination of the summer the whole would be put in a train of payment. The money was in the Treasury at Calcutta, bearing an inte- rest of 5 per cent. Originally it was at an interest of 6 per cent, and so it remained until an order came from this country for the distribution of a portion of it, when the interest of the remainder was fixed at 5 per cent. It would be doing great injustice to the East India Company if he were not to add, that they had evinced the greatest liberality throughout the whole transaction.

, in presenting a Petition from the Society of Friends in Ireland, praying for a mitigation of the severity of the Criminal Code, and especially for the abolition of the punishment of Death for Forgery, said, although he could not himself consent to go the whole length of the prayer of the petitioners, he felt much pleased and flattered by their intrusting the petition to his care. He did not know any class of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland who were so exemplary in the discharge of all the duties and relations of life as those who were known by the name of Friends. There were none who exerted themselves more in the encouragement of local improvement, or who devoted themselves more earnestly to the relief of the distress by which they were surrounded.

expressed his regret at hearing the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not prepared to go the whole length prayed for by the petitioners with respect to the punishment of forgery. He (Mr. Lennard) had last Session introduced a bill on the subject; and he now gave notice, that early after the Easter holidays he would again call the attention of the House to it.

, in explanation, said, that on Wednesday he would move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws respecting Forgery. By that bill it would be proposed to abolish the punishment of death for forgery, in many cases.

replied, that he had then misconceived the right hon. Gentleman.

rejoined, that all that he had meant to state was, that he was not prepared to acquiesce in the total abolition of the punishment of death for the crime of forgery.

presented a message from his Majesty, which was read by the Speaker. It was to the following effect:—"His Majesty having taken into consideration the Report made to his Majesty by the Commissioners appointed by his Majesty to inquire into the practice and course of proceedings in the superior Courts of Common Law, is desirous, with a view to improve and expedite the administration of justice in England and Wales, to be enabled to add to the number of Judges in the superior courts; and his Majesty relies on the liberality of the House of Commons to make such pecuniary allowance to the additional judges as may be suited to the dignity of the judicial station and the duties attached to it."

wished to take that opportunity to ask a question, to which he trusted some hon. Member present connected with the Board of Control would give a satisfactory answer. It had been stated in the public prints, that considerable alarm had been excited in India in consequence of orders which had been sent out by the Government here, forbidding Lord William Bentinck to give those facilities for settling and taking land which his Lordship had been so willing to afford, with a view to encourage and facilitate the settlement of Europeans in India. He (Mr. Hume) wished to know whether that statement was correct, and whether such orders had been transmitted to Lord Wm. Bentinck?

said, he supposed the hon. Member referred to the statement which had appeared in the papers that morning, and in that case he could assure the hon. Member that great misconception existed on the subject. The facts of the case were simply these. There appeared in an unofficial periodical publication in the summer of last year, an article which purported to be an order from Lord Wm. Bentinck, holding out encouragement to Europeans to settle in India, to take lease of lands, &c. The Board of Directors never received an official copy of any such order; but seeing this article, they transmitted a letter to Lord Wm. Bentinck, apprising him of the publication of such document. The Board of Directors took that opportunity to refer his Lordship to the resolution which had been adopted by the Board on the subject, and which had been issued to Lord Amherst in 1824, and they at the same time intimated to his Lordship that he must abide by the terms of that Resolution. The Directors, in their communication to his Lordship, in no other respect altered the regulations which were in existence as to the settlement of Europeans in India; they merely intimated to him that he must abide by the terms of the Resolution of 1824. It appeared that this order, attributed to Lord Wm. Bentinck, was entirely unknown to the department of the Government of this country especially connected with India, and that circumstance was sufficient to create a suspicion that it had never been issued by his Lordship, and in confirmation of that suspicion he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) might state, that though this order had been published in this country so long ago as last July, no official copy of it had been received by the Board of Directors up to the present moment. The letter of the Directors, to which he had already referred, merely intimated to Lord Wm. Bentinck that he must abide by the terms of the Resolution issued to Lord Amherst, and there would be no objection whatever to laying a copy of that letter before the House. Returns ordered.

moved the Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee of Supply.

would take that opportunity to inquire whether the House might shortly expect to have laid before it the papers relative to the affairs of Greece, mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session.

was not prepared at the mo- ment to give an answer to the question; but if the noble Lord supposed that these papers were in preparation at the time that the communication was made from the Throne, he laboured under an erroneous impression. His Majesty merely stated in the Speech from the Throne that he "hoped at an early period to be enabled to lay before Parliament the particulars of the arrangement" in question.

could not understand why these papers had not been in preparation before that time.

inquired why certain returns for which he had formerly moved, to show the number of persons entitled to vote in the several cities, boroughs, and towns in the United Kingdom, had not been made out?

said, the case was simply this. An Address was moved to his Majesty last Session, at an early period in the evening, shortly before the House adjourned, that there should be laid before the House a return of the number of persons entitled to vote in the several Cities and Boroughs in Great Britain. The return called for was of the number of persons entitled to vote, and it was impossible to make such a return, for it would be a most dangerous practice to allow the returning officer to decide upon the number of persons entitled to vote in any particular borough or city. A return could be furnished certainly of the number of persons who had actually voted at the, last election.

could not see what difficulty there was in the way of the returning officer making a return of the numbers that had actually voted, taken from, the poll-books at the last election in each particular case.

wished to know what inference could be drawn from the number that had voted at the last election? Many instances might occur where there had been no contest at all, and where, therefore, no such return could be made out.

suggested that a distinction should be made between the returns as to counties and as to cities and boroughs. In the latter places the number of voters could be easily ascertained, as the persons qualified to vote possessed that right in consequence of being freemen or free burgesses, &c,

said, it would be impossible to ascertain the number of scot and lot voters; and no return in that case, corresponding to the motion of the noble Lord could be made.

observed, that the return contemplated by the hon. Member for Aberdeen could not be made out correctly; for instance, as regarded the borough which he (Lord Nugent) represented. In 1818, 1,400 persons voted at the election in that borough; and since that period many who possessed the right to vote there had lost it, while the right to vote had been acquired since by others, who did not vote on that occasion.

wished to know whether he was to understand that the motion which he had made upon a former occasion, and to which no opposition was then offered, could not be complied with?

observed, that it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would give notice in future when he introduced motions of that description. No opposition had then been offered to his motion, because no person was aware that he intended to bring it on.

was desirous to know what was the purpose for which it was proposed to go into committee on this evening? was it intended to vote the Ordnance Estimates, upon this occasion, in a Committee upon the Navy Estimates, and before the House was prepared to go into the Ordnance Estimates? He should certainly object to such a course of proceeding, though he should have no objection that a certain sum, which might be necessary to meet the present expenses of this department should be now taken upon account.

said, that a certain sum was necessary at present for the public service in this department. His hon. friend intended to take a vote upon account for 200,000l. to meet the existing exigencies, and the Ordnance Estimates would be left open for discussion by the House on a future occasion.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, relative to a matter adverted to in his speech the other evening. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to institute an inquiry into the expenditure of the colonies, He was anxious to know how far that inquiry would go, and whether the inquiries of the commissioners would be confined merely to the colonial expenditure, or would extend to the constitutions under which the Colonies were governed. Such an inquiry he thought would be very useful.

said, it was not intended that the Commission in question should at all meddle with the constitutions of the Colonies. The object of the commission was to make a thorough review in detail of the colonial expenditure, for the purpose of effecting as much saving in that way as would be consistent with the public service. The proceedings of the commissioners would be submitted after- wards to the consideration of the House, and it would be for the House then to determine how far their recommendations might be acted upon.

wished to know who were to be the commissioners, how they were to be paid, and where they were to sit, and how long they were to continue their investigations. It appeared by a return for which he had moved, that commissioners had already cost the country upwards of 1,000,000l. in the space of twenty years, without producing any public benefit; and he therefore hoped that this, like other commissions, would not be followed by an useless expense without any public advantage. Fearing that it might, he should be disposed to object to the commission, unless he first knew who the commissioners were to be, and unless he obtained answers to his other questions.

said, he had already stated that this commission would be advantageous to the public, without imposing any new expense upon the country. It was to be composed of persons connected with the Government, and practically acquainted with the Colonies. No new expense whatever would attend the appointment of such a commission.

wished to know whether the inquiries of the commissioners would be extended to the Canadas?

replied in the affirmative.

conceived that some reasons for the measure should have been laid before the House, before the commission had been appointed. He should also like to know if the materials on which the commissioners would have to work were all ready.

was of opinion, that some new light should have been thrown upon the subject, before the appointment of the commission had taken place.

observed, that the mode which had been chosen had been selected as most advantageous and convenient. When the report of the commissioners should be presented, it would be in the power of the House to pronounce its opinion on the subject.

moved that the sum of 200,000l. be granted to his Majesty towards defraying the expenses of the Royal Regiments of Artillery in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, for the year 1830. He wished to state that this vote was asked on account, and passing it would not preclude discussion on the Ordnance Estimates. Vote agreed to.

, in proceeding with the remaining Navy Estimates, said, that the first vote he had to propose regarded the civil departments connected with the Navy, comprising the Admiralty, Navy-pay Office, Victualling Office, &c. In this Estimate a reduction to the amount of 1,710l. had been made this year. It would have been greater but for the large establishment connected with the office of the Treasurer of the Navy; but when the out-prize, and other parts connected with that office, should be better arranged, he was sure that his right hon. friend, the Treasurer of the Navy, would be able to effect considerable reductions in that establishment. The hon. Baronet moved that the sum of 180,017l. lls. 7d. be granted for defraying the salaries of the officers and other contingent expenses of the Admiralty, of the Navy Pay Office, and the Victualling Office.

objected to the taking of all these votes together. They should be i taken separately. He submitted that the first vote, that of 52,216l. 5s. 1d. for the Admiralty, should be first put.

agreed with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and could not but censure the practice of voting in one lump the expense of five different departments. Different Members might object to different portions of these expenses; for example, the hon. Member for Aberdeen objected to the vote for the Admiralty, which did not appear to him too large, though he objected to the next sum. He hoped, therefore, that the votes for the different departments would be put separately.

said, if it were considered more convenient for the Committee, he would propose the votes separately. The hon. Baronet then moved that the sum of 52,216l. 5s. 1d. be granted for defraying the salaries of the Officers, and other contingencies of the Admiralty Office, for the year 1830.

wished to call the attention of the House to a portion of this Estimate which had been incidentally mentioned a few nights ago; he meant the sum of 2,960l. which was asked for the establishment of the Paymaster of the Marines. Immediately following the estimate then before the Committee there was the estimate for the Navy Pay-office, amounting to 32,033l. Is. 6d. He contended that the former office should be consolidated in the Navy Pay-office, and by that means a saving would be effected for the public, to the extent of 2,960l. Nothing was more objectionable than the maintenance of such distinct departments. The department of the Marines being essentially connected with the Navy, should come under the Paymaster of the Navy. 600l. had been struck out of the estimate last year as the charge for the Paymaster of Widows' Pensions; but the over-charge for Paymaster of Marines was continued, notwithstanding the unanimous opinion of the Committee of Finance. The Government might perhaps be afraid that the recommendation was too economical. This would furnish one reason for the dissolution of the Committee, and perhaps the composition of the Committee would supply another. He thought, upon the simple principle that there should be no division in the administration of the same species of affairs, that the half-pay of the Marines ought to be brought under the Paymaster of the Navy; and he accordingly contended that the system which put this arm of the service under the management of a separate officer was prejudicial, because it tended to keeping up two departments, when one would do. He had moved a few days before for an account of the contracts of the Navy, Army, and Ordnance, with the view of showing how the present system worked. Some few years ago it was the practice for each commissary in the various departments of the Navy to draw the money for his own department; but under the direction of the Master of the Mint an end had been put to this plan, and it had been decided that one individual commissary (as for instance the commissary for Jamaica) should draw the whole sum of money required for abroad, and that all the others should receive their appointed portions from him. This he thought was at once a wise and economical regulation. Now he found from a paper he held in his hand, that there were seventy-four contracts made by the Paymaster of the Marines for supplying coals, candles, water, &c —bricklayers and materials—carpenters and materials, and God only knew what other articles beside; he would therefore ask this question—whether, since the Army was provided for by one department, (the Commissariat,) the Navy might not be managed after the same manner? Why should not all contracts for the Navy and Marines be settled and paid for at the Navy Pay-office? He wished that a statement of the separate expenditure of the Marines should be put in the Navy Estimates. He saw, from a paper in his hand, that there were 71,000l. for Officers, 245,000l. for Non-commissioned Officers and Privates, and 40,000l. for barrack and other expenses. Now, he begged to know how it came to pass, that alter the transferring of the Barrack department for the Army to the Ordnance department, these barracks for Marines should be retained under the superintendence of the Paymaster of the Marines? He was decidedly of opinion, that the Barrack, Pay, and Clothing departments ought to be consolidated; the first should be added to the Ordnance and the remainder to the Navy-office. He admitted that the gentleman who filled the office of Paymaster of Marines might be very well qualified for his situation, and he meant no reflection on him, but the situation ought, he thought, to be abolished. He hoped the House would support him in the amendment he should propose. If his Majesty's Ministers had not stated their anxiety to effect all possible reduction in the expense of the public service, he would not have thought them so blameable in not consolidating departments, when they were making the arrangement respecting the Treasurership of the Navy. He would be glad to hear the reasons that might be offered in oppo- sition to his recommendation; but, if they were not satisfactory, or the vote for the officers' salary be not withdrawn, he would certainly take the sense of the Committee upon the propriety of putting down this grant.

said, the hon. Member had observed, that the office of Paymaster of the Marines was expensive and unnecessary; the first it confessedly was; but as to the second, it appeared from the hon. Gentleman's own admission, that these duties which, he contended, might be transferred to another department, were numerous and important. Now, his strong impression was, that there could be no more sure way of creating confusion in the public service, and imposing on the country an increased expense, than that of uniting the Marine barrack department with the Ordnance. The Paymaster of the Marines did a great deal of duty in his double capacity; for he was not only a Pay-officer, but an officer of inspection and control: he was Paymaster and Inspector-general of the Marines. Now, the hon. Member, in the first place, asked why the Marine barracks were not brought under the superintendence of the Board of Ordnance. But, in fact, there was an essential difference between the management of the Army barracks and those for Marines. In the first, there was a constant change of inmates: one regiment marched out—another supplied its place; but the other barracks were constantly occupied by Marines, and therefore the accounts must necessarily be kept in a very different manner. The attention of the House had been called to the state of these barracks at different times; and, he believed, it must be admitted on all hands, that the expenditure, under the superintendence of the Paymaster of Marines, had been diminished in as great a degree as it could have been under any other Administration. The numbers in the barracks were invariably the same, and the average amount of expenditure for the seven years previous to the appointment of the Paymaster was 16,800l., while the average for the fourteen years subsequent had been brought down to 9,400l. And after the change had taken place, Mr. Tierney rose in his place and moved a compensation to each of the officers previously engaged in the department, amounting to 300l. or 400l. a year, in consequence, as he stated, of the new system, which was so economical that the country could well afford to pay the 1,000l. or 1,200l.; and so it had proved, for there was a saving of nearly one-half in the expenditure. A similar improvement had likewise taken place in another more trifling article. The average expenditure on the Infirmary, for the seven years previous to the appointment of the Paymaster, was 1,271l.; it had been since reduced to 192l. If the hon. gentleman were to abolish the office of Paymaster of the Marines, the duties of the office might go on elsewhere, but they could not be carried on without additional hands; and if there were persons unemployed in any office it would be for the hon. Gentleman to show it, that they might be at once reduced; but for himself he must say, that he did not know any office to which the addition of such important duties could be made, as those of the Paymaster of Marines, without a proportional increase of hands. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Parnell) had suggested in his work the propriety of appointing a general pay-board in this country; and this, undoubtedly, might be the case; but he believed there was no more sure way of creating confusion and expense than that of mixing up heterogeneous matters for the superintendence of the same department. Besides, it would only be a change of names—if they ceased to have a Paymaster, they must have a Commissioner of Pay—if they ceased to have an Inspector, they must have a Commissioner of Inspection. The office, in fact, let it be called by what name it might, could not be dispensed with, for there was no officer to whom there was more constant reference, none who was more frequently required to appear before the Admiralty Board than the Paymaster of Marines. The hon. Member had admitted that he had nothing to allege against the present Paymaster of the Marines, indeed a more zealous and able officer was not to be found. He had filled other situations with honour, and he had been appointed to his present situation because he was admirably qualified to perform its duties. The hon. Member has stated that the office was unnecessary, but on this point they were directly at issue. He was ready to contend that the office was necessary, and even indispensable. The House had, therefore, to decide between them: and considering his long experience, and the absence of all personal interest, he thought his evidence upon the matter was entitled to higher consideration than that of the hon. Gentleman. The Admiralty had done every thing that it could, consistently with prudence and sound policy, to consolidate offices; but the consolidation proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be only creative of confusion and expense.

said, that the hon. Secretary of the Admiralty might have urged all his present arguments against the former consolidation of the Barrack Department with the Board of Ordnance, which had been found so beneficial. Indeed no measure of economy was ever recommended which did not find Gentlemen to oppose it, in speeches similar to that the House had just heard, sitting on the Treasury benches. It was their business to persuade the House that reductions would not benefit the nation. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was not only an answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, it went to contradict the Treasury Minute of 1822, by which the consolidation of offices was recommended, its utility explained, and its applicability to all departments enforced. He was convinced that if this speech were written out, and so subjected to the examination of the Committee, that they would see reason to decide that it contained more sophistry than solid reasoning. Unless the House were to resist such sophistry, and say once for all, you must reduce your expenditure, we will give you no more than a certain sum—he was afraid no extensive reduction would ever take place. Before he gave his opinion upon totally abolishing the office, he wished to say that the present Paymaster of the Marines, whose merits he had admitted, had certainly made several reductions in his department, but this by no means proved those reductions to be sufficient. With all that Gentleman's zeal and ability, however, the reductions he was capable of making would not satisfy the public. After considering the matter well, he was convinced that the office might be done away. There were two sets of officers to two sets of barracks, and two sets of hospitals and two sets of accounts, one set of each being unnecessary. The Finance Committee was convinced that no part of the management of the public money required more immediate revision, for the present system gave no security, while it was confused and complicated. In his opinion all payments whatever should be made by a distinct department, and a system of audit should be established, in which the demand should be examined before any money was paid. The system of payment by one department was adopted in France, in other countries, and had been found to answer extremely well. So far as he could understand the whole system by which thirty millions of public money were annually paid in France, it seemed to him well worthy of the imitation of Great Britain. At all events he trusted that the payment of the public money would be taken into consideration by the Government, and that the system would be simplified. He meant to support his hon. friend the Member for Aberdeen.

said, the question to be decided was, if that office were necessary. He contended that it was not. The Pay-office of the Navy might pay the 10,000 marines in addition to the 19,000 seamen; and the duties of inspection might be performed by the General, Lieutenant-general, Major-general, or some of the other officers of the Marines who were so highly paid. He was convinced that this department was of no advantage to the public, and that its duties might be quite as well discharged, and at less expense, if they were arranged in the manner he had proposed. With respect to the Marine barracks, and the clothing for the marines, both these departments ought to be, he thought, transferred to the Ordnance, which already provided the clothing and stores for the artillery, and had the general inspection of barracks. He felt so strongly concerning the manner in which these matters were now arranged, that he was almost disposed to call the arrangement by the odious name of a job; the whole of the expenses, both for paying the marines and separate inspection of their barracks, being, in his opinion, wholly unnecessary.

defended the propriety of the arrangements now made in the department, and contended that no alteration of the sort proposed could be anything but injurious. In his opinion, the department, as it was now constituted, was most economically managed, and considering what its duties were, he did not think that the sum of 3,000l. a-year, now paid for them, could be considered as any great charge upon the public. The duties of the office had been increased of late years, for by an order of the Lord High Admiral, the clothing department of the marines was now added to its other labours. That alteration had only been effected a short time since, but during that short time it had proved to be a great public improvement. The marines had different pay and different allowances from the regular army, and great confusion would ensue if they were to be paid by the same department. He was convinced that the alteration proposed would create expense instead of saving money to the public. The hon. Member opposite had alluded to the General, Lieutenant-general, and Major-general of Marines, and had spoken as if these could be dispensed with. He begged to observe, in reply, that these offices were given as rewards to naval men who had served their country in a distinguished manner, and he was sure that the country would not grudge them these rewards. He would not consent to the alteration, because the duties of the Paymaster of Marines were now well discharged, and the consolidation or distribution proposed by the hon. Member was not likely to be profitable.

observed, that the opposition made to the Amendment was founded on the assertion of the great labour imposed upon the Paymaster of the Marines, in discharge of that part of his duty which consisted of inspecting the marines when on shore. He could not think that objection well founded, or, if it were, it might, as it seemed to him, be easily removed. When at sea, the marines were under the same discipline and regulations as the navy. He could not understand why, when the marines were on shore at different parts of the kingdom, but especially at Portsmouth, where the greater part of the duty was performed, the inspecting officer of the neighbouring garrison could not perform the duty of inspecting the marine corps and the marine barracks. If that were done, and he saw no possible objection to it, the great point on which the defence of the office was now rested would be removed. He trusted that the hon. Member for Aberdeen would either move a resolution to consolidate the offices now, or one which should pledge the House to adopt some step of that kind in the early part of the next Session.

said, that his object was, to reduce the grant by one-half, and he proposed a vote which would have the effect of producing that end now, if at all. As to any resolution that pledged the House for its conduct next Session, he feared little good would come of it. It was given in evidence before the Finance Committee, that there were ten or twelve clerks in the Paymaster's department unemployed which was a reproach to the chancellor of the Exchequer. Not one of them, he believed, had yet been reduced; and therefore he saw no other way of dealing with the question but for the House to compel the Ministers to make reductions by refusing to grant them money. He saw no reason, from what he had heard, to alter his opinion on the subject of the office of Paymaster. As to the business of inspection, there were now four Colonels-commandant and nine Lieutenant-colonels-commandant saddled upon the country, at an expense of 13,000l. a-year, which did not seem to him at all necessary; but at any rate, they might perform all the duties of inspection. As to the clothing, that might be transferred to the Ordnance. He was certain that no inconvenience would follow from this Motion being carried; and he should, therefore, persist in his intention of dividing the House upon it. The hon. Member then moved, as an Amendment, that the sum of 50,696l. be inserted in the grant instead of 52,126l.

did not intend to trouble the House at any length, but could not refrain from saying that these offices were defended in a manner in which there was more of fallacy and sophistry than he had ever before heard, and which depended on those old and worn-out excuses that might be brought forward in support of any kind of abuse. He thought it necessary that the Committee should express their opinion strongly on the subject, for if not, the Government would not come down as they ought to do next Session, and make the further reductions which were yet absolutely required. He called, therefore, on the Committee to mark their sense of this vote, and in that manner to strengthen that portion of the Government which was really favourable to the reduction of the public burthens.

protested against the doctrine which some Members seemed inclined to inculcate, that any particular vote of which they happened to disapprove showed the Government not to be sincere in their wish to diminish the public burthens. The question was, whether the business of the office now under discussion could be more cheaply or efficiently performed? On his side of the House they answered that question in the negative; while, on the other side, it was answered in the affirmative—on consideration, at least, that the business was transferred to other departments. The consolidation of business in the manner recommended might be carried too far. If it went beyond a certain extent, he did not think it would much conduce to the advancement of public economy. As to the old and worn-out excuses which the hon. Member had spoken of, he would only observe, that it was impossible on such a subject as this to bring forward anything but old and worn-out arguments, especially after the discussions which had recently taken place upon it. He could not but think that the alterations proposed would rather complicate than simplify the business of these offices, and increase instead of diminishing their expense.

could not conceive how the proposed distribution of duties could complicate the business of the office, when it was recollected that at this moment the Paymaster of Marines was a Military Paymaster, an Inspector of Marines, and a contractor for their clothing, all at the same time, and that the alteration suggested was, to divide these "complicated duties" among different departments. He should vote for the Amendment.

should support the Amendment, for he saw no reason for keeping up such an expensive establishment for the superintendence of only 9,000 men.

inquired to what purpose the grants for nautical inquiries had been applied?

replied, that the principal expense under this head was caused by the experiments made under the control and direction of Sir G. Brisbane.

said, he had had the intention of taking the sense of the House upon making certain deductions from the salaries of Officers in the Admiralty. His plan would be, to effect a deduction of fifteen per cent from the salaries of the higher officers, ten per cent from those of a lower class, and five per cent from the lowest. He thought it fair that those officers should not be the only persons to escape the effects of the change which had taken place in the currency; but as it was the intention of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, to bring that subject under the notice of the House, he was induced to postpone the proposition for the present.

then moved, that 32,033l. 1s. 6d. for the salaries of Officers and contingent expenses of the Navy Pay Office for the current year, be granted to his Majesty.

addressed the Committee for the purpose of moving an Amendment. He was then anxious to do so, as he had been diverted from voting as he wished on Friday week by the solemn appeal made to the House by the Secretary of the Home Department. The House were then called on by the hon. Secretary not to condemn him and the Administration for one single act, but to judge them by the whole of their conduct. When placed on that footing, he had not felt himself disposed to pronounce a general condemnation, but as then refusing to grant a salary for the Treasurer of the Navy would imply no such general condemnation, he meant to propose an amendment to the effect, that a reduction of 1,200l. be made in the salary of Treasurer of the Navy. The large salary which that officer possessed could not be defended, he conceived, on the ground of any weighty responsibility to which he was exposed; for in the event of there being any default, indemnity was scarcely ever refused. Whenever a subordinate officer happened to become a defaulter, application was immediately made to that House on his behalf; and they always felt bound to let the public suffer rather than the individual. Hon. Gentlemen were sure to get up in their places, and say that the principal officer was the most worthy and honourable person in existence; and that he should not, upon any account, be allowed to suffer for the default of his subordinate; so that it was a mere pretence to say that the high salary was maintained on account of the responsibility. Again, there could be no pretext for maintaining the salary up to its present amount on account of any change made in the nature and circumstances of the office—no new duties had been attached to it. He desired to see a reduction in the present vote of 1,200l. He was perfectly ready to acknowledge that a reduction of 12,000,000l. would not afford the relief which the necessities of the country required; but he wished, by even cutting down 1,200l., to show a suffering people that some sympathy was felt for their sufferings by the body who represented them. As an Amendment, he moved that "The vote be 30,833l."

, though he wished to see economy, could not consent to the proposed reduction. The office of Treasurer of the Navy had always been held by a person of respectability, and it was important for the service of the country that it should so continue to be held. The Finance Committee of 1817 had re- commended, that that office should be continued, while the salary attached to it had, in his opinion, been cut down in the present estimates. He was fully convinced that, without serious disadvantages, the emoluments of that office could not be diminished. Reductions of salary were perfectly distinct from the matter brought under the consideration of the House by the hon. Member for Cumberland. Whatever votes might have been given upon that question, none of them implied any pledge with respect to the present. It was likewise of importance to be remembered, that neither the right hon. Member for Liverpool, nor any other gentleman who held the office, had ever said that the salary admitted of reduction, or that the office could be dispensed with. He believed, even, that the office of Paymaster of the Navy, which it was in contemplation to abolish, would be retained, for it could not be, in fact, dispensed with. The Amendment he certainly should oppose, for he was altogether of opinion that Ministers had made all practicable reductions, and he thought they were entitled to the confidence of the House. For his part, he candidly acknowledged that he relied more upon his Majesty's Government for effecting useful reductions, than upon any amendments which might be moved in that House. Reduction was in the hands of the Government, and to them it might be safely confided. So he thought, and such he was sure was the general sentiment of the country.

would support reduction, but not exactly in the form in which it was then proposed to the House. But for the Amendment before the Committee, he intended to have moved an amendment, the object of which would have been to carry into effect the purpose of the motion made a few evenings since by the hon. Member for Cumberland. The Government had admitted the office of Paymaster-general to be useless. He therefore wished to try the sincerity of their professions of economy by seeing whether they would consent to its abolition, and his amendment would have been, had he preceded the hon. Member, to abolish the salary of the Paymaster. It was necessary to ascertain whether offices were intended for the benefit of the public, or the advantage of the individuals who held them. The true way for his Majesty's Government to prove the sincerity of their professions with respect to economy would be to shew, in questions of that nature, that they regarded the public interest more than the interest of the individual. His experience however of all discussions like the present was, that the interest of the public was looked upon as nothing, while that of the individual was looked upon as every thing. It was perfectly vain and futile to talk or think of economy so long as the interest of the public was postponed to that of every individual which might happen to be opposed to it. He hoped the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment would withdraw it, and allow him to move a resolution, the object of which would be to grant only the next half-year's salary to the Paymaster-general.

concurred with the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, and stated that he would not vote against the ministry as to the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because such a vote would have implied a censure on the Administration.

said, he had voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Cumberland, for abolishing the office of Treasurer of the Navy, because he thought the Government might have made a more economical arrangement, and that it was the business of the House to compel Ministers to adopt such an arrangement. It appeared by the statements of the hon. Members opposite, that two offices were kept up while one was sufficient, and while the Paymaster, according to the admission of the Secretary to the Admiralty, did the whole business both of Treasurer and Paymaster. To him therefore it was extraordinary that the efficient office should be abolished and the inefficient retained. The responsibility of the Treasurer had been dwelt on, but in fact, when put to the proof, that turned out to be no responsibility at all. The office of Treasurer of the Navy was plainly therefore a sinecure. It had been stated too, that the Treasurer might not only do the duties of his office and attend in Parliament, but also that he had time to look after what had been called the floating and unattached business of the Government. What then was the saving proposed by the abolition of the office of Paymaster? The Treasurer received a salary of 2,000l. with a proportionate superannuation, and the Paymaster had 1,200l. also with superannuation.

said that was not the case.

, in continuation. Well, at least the Paymaster was to be continued till he could be otherwise pro-vided for. If his proposition were agreed to, the Treasurer should be dismissed and the Paymaster alone retained, by which 2,000l.. a year would be saved. That it had been recommended in 1817 that the office of Treasurer of the Navy should be retained was no argument with him to be put in competition with the fact, that a salary of 2,000l. a year was given for doing nothing;. The evidence before the Finance Committee shewed that the Paymaster did all the duties, and he would rather augment his salary than give the Treasurer a farthing. As the consequence of pressing his views might, however, only lead to a division among those who were friendly to economy, he would propose no additional amendment, but content himself by voting for the amendment already moved.

said, that each of the Members who opposed the vote, did it on different grounds, though only the hon. Member who spoke last advocated the abolition of the office of Treasurer of the Navy. He had been already answered by the hon. Baronet (Sir George Warrender). As to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Corfe Castle, he must reply, that it had been regulated that the Treasurer of the Navy was to be made an efficient officer, and the paymastership put an end to, as soon as the meritorious officer who now held that place could be provided for. The present grant, as proposed, was only for six months; and it was the firm intention of Government to provide for the gallant officer who held the place in some other way as soon as possible.

said, that he understood the Government, on the previous debate on this subject, to have pledged itself that the office of Paymaster should be immediately got rid of.

said, no such pledge had been given by him, or with his knowledge. He always understood that it rested upon the contingency of Government being able to find some other suitable office for the present occupier. What he had then stated was, that there would be an immediate saving of 1,000l., and that when the Paymaster could be provided for, there would be a saving of 2,200l.

agreed entirely in the observations of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, and would certainly vote with him on the present occasion. He, for one, would never agree to the keeping up of a useless office, until the individual who held it could be provided for. The Admiralty ought to be compelled to act up to its profession of economy, and compelled immediately.

said, that the only argument he had heard in favour of the vote was, that the services of the gentleman who held the office of Paymaster had been active and efficient, and that it was the duty of the Government to retain him in that situation till he could be otherwise provided for. To that argument he could never agree. He had lately observed, that seventy seamen, who held trifling situations on board ships at Portsmouth, had been discharged, and he should be glad to know whether Ministers had waited until these brave men, who had fought and bled in the service of their country, were provided for, before they were sent adrift? At another place one hundred and twenty men were dismissed with a very short notice. He had, a few days before, received an account of thirty families thrown out of the employment of Government, without any notice or provision whatever. He knew no individuals who had such claims on the rewards of the country, as these seamen, who were often compelled to enter its service. It would be most unjust therefore if Ministers kept a single officer in employ for an hour more than he was wanted, while they discharged these poor seamen, and left them to starve, unprovided and unpensioned. Their services had not been limited to the Victualling or the Navy office; their duties had led them under tropical suns and amidst the ice of the poles; they had braved storms and battles, and if they were to be turned off, while a ministerial office was to be kept up to reward the services of some man who had at most never braved any other storm than that of a debate, the people might with justice cry out against the Government and the Parliament. It appeared, indeed, that while these men, who had actively served their country, might be sent to the parish for relief, one of his Majesty's servants must be made a burthen to the public, till a pension could be found to suit him. After this, let them hear no more about a desire to relieve a suffering people. After this, let there be nothing said about plans of retrenchment and economy.

said, if the hon. Member had but looked a few pages further in the Estimates he would have seen that there was an ample vote to enable Government to reward those seamen who had served their country. It was a great mistake to suppose that seamen who had served their country were turned adrift without any provision being made for them. But if he were not mistaken, the persons to which the hon. Member had alluded, were men who had been in the Ordinary at Portsmouth, and who had been snugly housed there for many years. Many of them had pensions, however, and all who had claims would be provided for, though some of them had not served a sufficient time to entitle them to a pension.

said, that it appeared on all hands that the office of Treasurer of the Navy was a sinecure; and yet it was the sinecure officer that was to be preserved, and the other that was to be dismissed. The proper mode of acting was to get rid of the sinecure, and give the man who did the business an ample remuneration. This scheme of the Government was very like its other schemes which promised economy: as for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a saving in the Victualling-office; but the fact was, that there had been an increase of nearly 200l. It was said too that there would be a saving in the Navy-office of 2,900l., but he found superannuations to the amount of 4,000l. He called on the House to continue the office of Paymaster and refuse the salary of the Treasurer.

observed, that out of the five speeches that had been made against the item, four of them contained different and distinct propositions as to the two offices. This was of itself sufficient to prove that it was a matter of extreme difficulty for his Majesty's Ministers to bring forward a proposition with respect to this situation that was at all likely to produce unanimity. He denied that there was any difference in the language held by Ministers on the present, and on the former occasion. They asserted that there would be an immediate saving of 1,000l. a year, and that eventually the saving would amount to 2,200l. per annum, and they said so still. Their object was, to continue the office of Paymaster until some provision might be made by the falling in of a situation connected with the patronage of the Crown, for the person who now holds it, instead of saddling the country with a pension. He thought it would be very unjust to remove a distinguished naval officer from the situation, without granting him an adequate provision. The Estimates had been for some time in the hands of the Members, and therefore it could not fairly be urged that the House was not aware that the vote was to be proposed. Neither was it just to insinuate that the Government were taking this step for the purpose of keeping up its patronage; because in this case, they were providing for an individual whose brother, his right hon. friend, the Member for Liverpool, had voted against them on this very question, the object of which vote, had it been successful, would have been to have turned the Ministers out of office. They therefore might be wrong in judgment, but was it possible to say that they were acting from any corrupt motive? He would give the House this assurance— that the office of the Paymaster of the Navy should never again appear in an Estimate. They had never contemplated its appearance there; but when the Motion was made the other night, he did expect that Parliament would make the provision for one year. If within two months an opportunity of a vacancy should occur, the Government would take advantage of it, and in preference to any political claim, would give the appointment to this officer. But it was possible that no such vacancy would occur, and he therefore trusted that the House would not compel them to turn this individual out of office without any provision whatever.

said, that he took a similar view of the subject to that taken by the hon. Member for Abingdon. The sum, it must be admitted, was small; but economy was not for him the most important consideration. The House had then in its power to remove one dependant on the Government from the House, and as there was already more than a sufficient number of members of Government in the House, to get rid of one would be a constitutional benefit. The effect of agreeing, to the vote would be, to confirm the Treasurer of the Navy a political officer, dependent upon the continuance of Ministers in their places, for his situation in that House. He did not so much regard the expense as the influence, and he should willingly vote for the total abolition of the office.

supported the Amendment, in order to compel Ministers to immediate economy.

called upon the Member for Radnor to put an end to the debate, by stating whether he were willing to hold the office of Honorary Treasurer of the Navy until the Paymaster of the Navy was otherwise provided? If he would do that, the vote would be unnecessary.

observed, that he had no wish to accept of the office as a sinecure. He would rather have an office full of business. The hon. Member asked, whether he would consent to perform the duties of the office without salary? That was a question on which he as an individual could not decide. It was for the House, and not for him, to decide how the duties were to be performed, and how the person performing them was to be remunerated.

hoped that the House would not consent to any compromise, but decide the question upon principle. He did not see in what respect the King could be said to want patronage, or how he could use it to save the public purse. [Order] He supposed that the interruption must proceed from some very new and young Member, who had never heard the Minister talk of the King's patronage, and of the patronage of the Crown. His ears must be extraordinarily delicate to be offended at what he had said.

lamented that his argument had not penetrated the understanding of the hon. Member, who must be extremely pugnacious if he were disposed to quarrel with the very modest proposal of Ministers. The experiment he wished to try was, whether the office of Deputy could not be abolished—the principal being required to discharge the duties. If it should turn out that the experiment failed, he would undertake that in the estimates of next year only 2,000l. should be taken for the salary.

said, that having elicited this information from the right hon. Secretary, he should beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he saw a charge in the Estimates of 425l. for conductors of money, and he wished to know why the Government continued to send money to the out-ports by messengers, instead of obtaining money through the medium of bankers?

said, that it was found the most economical to send part of the money for the payment of the navy to the outports. He would take that opportunity of stating that he was aware of the recommendation on this subject contained in the pamphlet of the hon. Bart. (Sir H. Parnell). But the statement that half a million sterling was sent to the different out-ports by such means was an error. A sum not exceeding 20,000l. was transmitted in the way mentioned, 480,000l. being sent in the most economical manner, either by waggons or by mail. The silver which was necessary could not in general be obtained on the spot, and that was transmitted from London. The only question was, as to the more economical method of making the transmission? The Bank had been consulted, and it had been found that, according to the terms it proposed, the better way would be, to transmit the money, as was done, by Government waggons, under the charge of a guard of soldiers. That was the reason why a portion of silver was so transmitted to the out-ports. As to the question relative to conductors, he would inform the hon. Member, that large sums passed between the Navy Office and the Bank of England, and again large sums were sent by the mails, and it was necessary that some persons should be responsible for the money while in transitu. The person who was so responsible was called a conductor, and his services could not be performed by an ordinary messenger. The conductor did not go with the money by the mail, he only saw it safely deposited in the charge of the Post Office. The silver sent to the out-ports was placed under a military escort, and did not need a conductor.

said, that the Committee had been given to understand that the system of sending money to the out-ports was by covered waggons, provided with a guard, and therefore he supposed that the system described by his hon. friend must be a very modern improvement. He believed that even the present method was not the most economical, for Ireland was provided with silver money without the expense of conductors and military guards.

contended that the bankers at the outports would supply the money that was wanted. The hon. Member read several extracts from the evidence given before the Finance Committee, to shew that Sir H. Parnell was warranted in believing that money was transmitted in large sums to the out-ports. The same evidence also shewed that the Paymasters of Marines could get silver from bankers at the out-ports, without any expense, and he did not know therefore why the Navy Pay Office could not do the same.

would undertake to examine the subject, and if he could find better means of conveying the money than that now employed he would adopt it.

was disposed to give his hon. friend credit for his exertions; but he believed that the bankers at the out-ports must conduct their business on different principles from other bankers, if they could not advance what money would be required.

expressed himself satisfied with the declaration of the hon. Gentleman.