objected, on the part of his constituents, to this Bill, which, to the best of his belief, was only calculated to create inconvenience and expense to a large portion of the inhabitants of Westminster and the neighbourhood of the metropolis. Some farmers would have to carry their hay two miles further to the new market, and all would be put to great additional expense in going back with a return load of manure. No practical inconvenience was felt from the present situation of the market; and as the new market would occasion a great deal of inconvenience, he meant to oppose the Bill at every opportunity. He would not however resist bringing up the Report, as the House was so thinly attended, he being convinced that the Bill was the less likely to succeed in proportion to the number of the Members who should be present at its discussion. He would only add, that it would compel the farmers who supplied that market to keep five or six hundred more horses than at present.

observed in reply, that the unpopularity of the measure was by no means so universal amongst the hon. Member's constituents as he would have the House to believe. On the contrary, he apprehended that the suggestion for a removal was generally received with approbation. The reluctance of a few, even although they might lose by the alteration, ought to give way to the general interests of the public. In fact, if partial objections were not in such cases overlooked, all improvements of any kind whatsoever must be prevented. In Birmingham and Sheffield the respective markets had been removed from the centre to the outskirts of those towns, and the change was found to be in every respect advantageous and satisfactory to the inhabitants. What would be thought if it were now proposed to establish the market in St. James's Square, and yet that was more spacious than the Haymarket? In fact, when the market was first established, St. Martin's was really St. Martin's in the Fields, now it was St. Martin's in the centre of the town, and the situation had become unsuitable to a market. The place whither it was intended to remove this market was not distant more than a mile and a half from the northern districts of the metropolis.

here interposed, by stating that it was right he should inform the House, before the discussion proceeded farther, that the report of the committee was irregular, not being in accordance with the Standing Order that prescribed the terms in which the Report of a Committee on a private bill ought to be couched. This Report merely set forth that the Standing Orders had been complied with,—that they had heard counsel and made certain amendments, leaving out what was most important,—namely, that "they had examined the allegations in support of the Bill, and found the same to be true." It therefore became necessary that the Report should be recommitted before they could proceed further with the Bill, consistently with the observance of the forms of the House.

remarked, that the promoters of the Bill had not adduced any evidence whatever in support of it.

expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex with respect to the inconvenience and expense which a great number of persons must sustain in consequence of the removal in contemplation. He should now, however, give notice relative to another subject nearly affecting the convenience and accommodation of the inhabitants of the metropolis—that when the Bill was brought fairly before the House, it was his intention to bring under its consideration the proposed obstruction at the end of Waterloo-place, which precluded the public from entering St. James's-park through the opening, as they had hitherto so naturally expected. They considered the stopping up the passage there as a direct violation of the avowed plan of the Government.

agreed with the hon. Member for Westminster in objecting to this churlish exclusion of the public where there was no adequate reason for disregarding their accommodation. He was further of opinion that the House ought not to pass money votes either for the expenses of the Palace or for any other improvement connected with the Park, till this very reasonable demand should be complied with.

stated, that his only reason for pursuing the course he did was, because it enabled him to take the earliest opportunity of opposing the obstruction, which was particularly desirable, as the workmen were at present actively employed in stopping up the passage in question.

entertained a similar opinion as to the general inconvenience and disappointment which would be felt in the metropolis if the noble Lord persisted in refusing so reasonable a request. He wished to see the entrance from Waterloo-place effected by a double flight of steps into the Park.—The Bill recommitted.

, on the Question having been put, said, as the greater part of the 4-per-cents were trust funds, he hoped the mode adopted of securing the transfers would be such as would equalize the payments and satisfy the parties for whom the funds were held in trust. He was anxious also to know by what plan the dissentients were to be paid off, because that ought to be ascertained before the House were called upon to provide for the necessary amount. Was it to be by Exchequer Bills?

said, in reply, that it would be inexpedient for the Government prematurely to disclose its plan. He hoped it would be enough for his hon. friend to know, that the intended mode of proceeding would be what became the country to pursue in fairness and justice to the public creditor, while the interest of the public was not neglected.

said, it was of great importance to ascertain how the dissentients were to be paid, and he should therefore beg leave to repeat the question already put by his hon. friend.

could give no further satisfaction. It was necessary to know the number of dissentients, and the amount required to satisfy them before any plan could be adopted. If it were done by way of annuity, an interest corresponding to the eventual reduction of capital, and the rate of the market, would be given.

was persuaded that his right hon. friend meant to do justice, but must press upon him the necessity of making his plan known as early as possible.

pressed earnestly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, in justice to the stockholders of the 4-per-cents, what his mode of proceeding would be, to enable them to have proper time to decide whether they would accept his new stock, or take their money. He ought also to say how he meant to provide for the dissentients, because it was essential for the public to know how far the Bank of England was to be engaged in the transaction, considering the heavy liabilities to which that corporation were already exposed. These two points of information he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity of giving.

was quite convinced that the project of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was practicable, but he thought the fullest information ought to be given to all the parties concerned.

said, he too was anxious for information, though he was bound to say that the main object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had his entire approbation. He wished, on that occasion, to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the propriety of converting all the permanent into terminable annuities, because we had the means of doing so; and that would, at no distant period, put an end to the public debt. The plan should be, to effect the conversion at the market rate of interest, but he would induce the parties concerned to come into the measure by giving them a bonus. The plan had been strongly recommended by the Finance Committee, and since then he believed about 2,300,000l. stock had been so converted. The plan subjected the country to an additional charge for interest, but he did not think that a valid reason for not carrying it into effect. At present, the amount of surplus revenue for any quarter was determined by the sum actually paid into the Treasury during the four preceding quarters, and one fourth of the excess of that over the expenditure for the corresponding period was held to be the disposable surplus for the next quarter, and was placed in the hands of the commissioners for the redemption of the National Debt. If the surplus were 500,000l. they might employ it either in purchasing stock or in effecting the conversion of permanent into terminable annuities, as recommended by Mr. Finlayson. If they purchased stock, supposing them to buy 3-per-cents at par, the 500,000l. would extinguish less debt than if employed in inducing persons, by giving them a rea- sonable bonus, to convert permanent into terminable annuities. This plan, which had been recommended by Mr. Finlayson, appeared to him the best which had yet been suggested for the gradual extinction of the debt, and therefore he wished to press it on the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he was anxious to give any reasonable proposition a fair trial, but he did not like to pledge himself hastily. The calculations on which such schemes were founded assumed certain facts as data which were not always correct. Although he had been with the noble Lord at that University where calculation was much studied, he confessed that he had not yet mastered Mr. Finlayson's plan; but supposing, when he had mastered it, that he should find it promising, he would give it a fair trial. He had certainly, at one time, supposed that the annuity scheme would not be popular. Experience, however, had convinced him that he had made a mistake. Being aware that the proposed plan would, if founded on correct data, lessen the capital of the debt in a few years, he would certainly take the subject into his consideration.

expressed his satisfaction th Mr. Brickwood's plan was to be tried.

of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, when

proposed, that 57,560l. 15s. be granted for the Salaries of Officers and Contingent Expenses of the Navy Office for the current year.

wished to know what saving had accrued from the change which he understood had been made in the Navy Board, two Commissioners having retired?

explained, that the Navy Board, which, by regulations of 1786 was divided into several committees, had been, by a late regulation, which received the sanction of the Finance Committee, altered in its constitution. Instead of being; divided into committees, each Commissioner was made responsible for some one department, and in consequence of this regulation two Commissioners had been removed. But in consequence of the important duties of the two surveyors, which were entirely professional, it was deemed right to retain their services. Care would, however, be taken, that in all future appointments the rank and salary of these executive professional officers should be less, so as to have the offices filled by master-shipwrights, who could carry on these inspections and fully perform the requisite duties. He ought also to mention, that a considerable reduction had been made in the number of clerks in the Navy Office, and that further reductions were in progress.

complained of the amount of the Superannuations, which he said had increased instead of diminished. He strongly recommended Government to adopt some plan by which its servants might provide for their own superannuations.

replied that Government had done so. In all the appointments which have been made since the recommendation of the Select Committee on this subject, the plan referred to by the hon. Member had been acted upon. The superannuation of all public officers who might hereafter enter the service of the country would cost it nothing. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government had the most earnest desire to carry into full effect the recommendations of the Finance Committee.

asked whether all the officers under Government were obliged to provide for their own superannuation?

answered, all officers under the Treasury.

observed, that the regulation applied to all officers who had been appointed since the passing of the Treasury Minute last year, and he had to inform the hon. Gentleman, that he should, in a few days, introduce a bill to extend it to all offices under the Crown.

imputed all these improvements to the Finance Committee which he was sorry had not been revived. The public would know to whom the reforms were due.

recommended that a scale of salaries to be adopted in every department of the public service should be drawn up and submitted to the House. The present system was inexplicable, it went on no principle, and required revision.

agreed in the observation of the hon. Member, and begged to inform him that a Return was preparing which would shew the salary of every officer under the Crown, from the highest to the lowest. The Treasurer meant to in-traduce a bill to regulate and provide for superannuations.

desired to know whether this bill was only to regulate superannuations?

said, according to a Treasury Minute, all persons hereafter accepting office immediately under the Treasury, are to have a reduction made in the amount of their salaries, to form a fund to provide for their own superannuations. The bill which he meant to introduce would extend this principle to all the departments of the public service.

objected to the number of useless officers in the Admiralty Office. One Secretary for the Admiralty should at least be got rid of. In 1792 the expense of the three departments, Navy-office, Navy-Pay-office, and the Admiralty, was only 58,719l., and in the present year the charge was 142,000l. He noticed that there was a salary of 1000l. a-year for a superintendant of transports in profound peace. The salaries of the Surveyor of Naval Building, and of the Comptroller and Commissioner of the Navy, had been trebled nearly since 1792; and when rent and profit, and the wages of labour, as well as the price of all commodities, had fallen so very much, it was neither reasonable nor just that these salaries should be preserved at their full war amount, when they were raised to meet a depreciated currency. An estimate which exceeded the corresponding estimate in 1792 by upwards of 80,000l. was a great deal too large.

said, that if the salaries had increased, the number of Commissioners had been diminished since 1792, and that the public business had increased. In 1792, all the commissioners had a power of selling clerkships; the clerks in their turn received fees, and he could assure the hon. Member, that if the expense to the public was now greater than in 1792, the emoluments of the individuals were much less. The practice of selling clerkships and of taking fees had been done away. He was sure that it could be neither for the honour nor the interest of the public service to return to the system of 1792. If the question were examined in all its bearings, he was persuaded that the present Estimate, as compared with that for 1792, would reflect honour on the Government.

repeated his statement, that the salaries of these officers were too large; and, in particular, he would object to giving the Superintendant of Transports 1000l. a-year.

said, he ought, perhaps, to have stated, that the Superintendant of Transports performed the duty of a Commissioner of the Navy.

did not think the salaries of the Commissioners too large, but he observed that many gentlemen held more than one appointment. The Commissioner for Hackney Coaches, for example, with a salary of 300l. a-year, was also Governor of Hull, with a salary of 180l. Aid-du-Camp to the King with another salary of 180l.; he received, in addition, a pension of 300l., with other appointments, that made up a salary of 1,290l. a year. Another Commissioner with a salary of 1750l. a-year was Lieutenant-governor of the Tower with a salary of 750l. There was one Commissioner of Taxes with 1,600l., who also received for two other situations 400l., making up 2,000l. a-year. It was wrong to make a military man give up his half pay on receiving a civil appointment, and allow a civil officer to hold three or four appointments, and receive full pay for each. In his opinion, the amount of salaries should be fixed in proportion to duties, and no person should derive any emolument from any other office than from that the duties of which he actually performed. He had never objected to giving high and responsible officers liberal salaries, but he objected to their obtaining these salaries by holding different offices, of which they could not perform the duties. He believed, too, that if a system of uniformity were introduced as to the amount of salaries, the public service would be better performed.

wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Finance Committee, with respect to the mode of keeping accounts.

said, that it was necessary to bring in a bill for that purpose, and the bill was in the course of preparation. He added, that the present Accountant-general of the Navy-office had introduced, in lieu of the old system, a very improved system of accounts, upon the basis of the double entry.

complained, that the old system of keeping accounts was still adhered to by the Navy-office, when a better system had been prepared and recommended, but not adopted. He wished that Mr. Abbott's plan, which was similar to that adopted by the East India Company, and by the French Government, had been followed.

defended the conduct of the Treasury, in adopting the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts, and rejecting that which was recommended by the other Commissioner, Mr. Abbott. It was for the Treasury to determine between the two plans, and they adopted, upon mature consideration, that which they considered the best.

said, it was plain that the Treasury, in this instance, had acted with too much haste. They should have let the merits of the two systems be tried before they adopted one in preference to the other. They showed too great haste in rejecting the system which included the journal. It must be admitted, he thought, that his hon. friend, who carried on an extensive business, was a better judge of accounts than the officers of the Treasury; and the opinion of his hon. friend was a sufficient condemnation of the system the Treasury had adopted. The Government should have tried the two systems before adopting either. When the Finance Committee recommended that the public accounts should be investigated by Commissioners, it was with a view of procuring information; so that the best possible system might be introduced. He thought, and so did his hon. friend, that the system which included the journal was preferable to the other, and thinking so, he must affirm, that the Treasury had acted rashly in at once adopting the system which did not include it.

said, the Government had no interest in the matter further than to select the system of keeping accounts which they deemed to be best, and that they had done in selecting the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts. He conceived that the Treasury had done perfectly right in choosing that system. He had long been of opinion, that uniformity in keeping all the public accounts was very desirable. They would then be easily understood by the House and the country, and the Government would be able at all times to tell how the business under its control was managed. With this view the Finance Committee had recommended an inquiry into the public accounts, and the Treasury had, in consequence of that recommendation, appointed Commissioners to inquire. Mr. Abbott was named as an impartial person, well acquainted with public accounts, and Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts were accountants of well deserved reputation. It was impossible for men to have performed their duty better than did the two latter gentlemen, and though they unfortunately differed from Mr. Abbott, he would venture to say that their plan was better than his. He did not deny that Gentleman's merit, but he was bound to defend the system recommended by gentlemen, equally meritorious, and justly adopted in preference by the Treasury. At the same time, he did not mean, in any manner, to blame Mr. Abbott with reference to the public accounts; he wished to remark, that they differed from mercantile accounts, and in his opinion, those who were acquainted with the business of the Treasury were better judges of the proper methods of keeping the public accounts than merchants. He might take some credit to himself from knowing as much of those accounts as the hon. Member for Abingdon; he had had a good deal to do with public business, that hon. Member would admit, but he was not ignorant of the method followed by merchants, and therefore, when he stated that the Treasury had acted right, he thought his opinion might weigh as much with the House as the adverse opinion of the hon. Member.

observed, that a great improvement had been introduced by the Treasury within the last three years in the system of keeping accounts in the Navy and other public offices.

said, that he did not censure the individuals, he condemned the total want of system in keeping the accounts in the public offices. The universal system of keeping accounts throughout the commercial world—the system adopted in France—throughout Europe—by the East India Company—and by all merchants—should have been preferred by the Government to the fanciful system of Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts.

said, when the two systems in question were laid before him, he had resolved to examine them both, and adopt that which seemed best. He had after a minute examination, given the preference to the system recommended by Messrs. Brooksbank and Belts, which had been in operation in all the public offices, with the exception of the Navy-office, since the 1st of January; and he was confident that at the close of the year the experiment, as to its superior merits, would prove most satisfactory. He would add, that this system was formed on the basis of double entry, the same as the other, and he believed would in its results be found more useful.

maintained, that in any department where, in the system of keeping accounts, the journal was excluded, the proper and necessary check could not exist. Any private commercial establishment would be ruined in six months unless a journal were kept. By its use, the head of any department could tell every night and morning the whole sum received and expended in that department; and he could exercise an effectual control, with very little trouble on his part, over all the subordinate officers.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that there would arise a fitter time than that for the discussion; but he wished then to remark, that he had for ten years pressed the Government to introduce a simple system of keeping accounts, so that they might be understood by those who were as little familiar with accounts as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be. At length some attention had been paid to his recommendation, but not, he contended, in the best manner. Without the journal no effective check could exist. No private establishment could keep its accounts without it; the French Government had introduced it into use, and found it an admirable means of controlling its expenses.

, who contended, that this was an unnecessary and expensive office. The Government should do every thing in this way by contract, as was the case in the Army. If the Victualling Board were to be kept up, one individual would be sufficient to manage it. At present it cost 48,000l.; and the Victualling-yards cost 61,000l. making 109,000l. for this unne- cessary department. There was a Chairman with a salary of 1,200l. a year, a Deputy chairman with a salary of 1,000l. and four Commissioners each having a salary of 800l.; these officers costing the country annually 5,400l. If all the business were done by contract, he would venture to assert that 70,000l. a year might be saved in this department alone. One provision-merchant in London passed more provisions through his warehouse at an expense of 3,000l. than the Government did at the expense of 100,000l. The Government should not manufacture a single article, but should buy every thing in the market at the cheapest rate.

inquired how it was, that the superannuation allowances had increased in this Estimate?

said, that the increase arose in the following manner. The clerks on entering the different offices connected with the Navy were distributed among them according as they belonged to the inferior or the superior departments. If they belonged to the inferior department, they received for the first three years only 90l. a year. For every year they served afterwards they received an addition of 10l. till they reached the maximum allowance of 300l. a year. Thus a clerk must have served twenty-three years before he could obtain 300l. a year in the inferior departments. A similar course was observed in the superior departments, where the maximum salary was about 500l. a year. The increase of the total sum allotted to superannuation arose from the great number of clerks who had been superannuated, but no increase had been made in the allowance of any one. The salaries were placed upon the present footing in the year 1806, at which time the clerks appeared to the House to be underpaid. The remuneration which they now received was not greater than their merits. He contended that the whole of the Victualling Board could not be given up, even supposing that the Navy were in all cases to contract for stores and provisions: it would still be wanting to superintend the distribution of stores at the different ports. He likewise pointed out the influence of the establishment at Deptford in lowering the tenders of the contractors, and stated that it had been found particularly useful in the years 1825 and 1826.

said, that a large capital had been expended in building mills and purchasing corn for the Government, He thought that, upon principle, such things could be best done by contract. If the contracts were improperly executed, had they not inspectors of contracts to compel their proper execution? If those inspectors passed bad flour, and that flour were afterwards complained of by the Naval officers to whom it was delivered, had not the Government the means of reprimanding and dismissing such inspectors? Had it not also the means of punishing contractors who committed frauds? Letting these matters, however, pass for the present, he would ask the hon. Baronet to inform him whether a regular mercantile book was kept on behalf of the Government, containing an account of the corn bought, the labour employed, and the flour delivered in his Majesty's yards? and whether to that account a per centage was added for the capital employed?

replied, that there was an exact debtor and creditor account kept of the corn bought and the flour manufactured, together with an account of the salary paid to the Master, and all other contingent expenses. He added, that such a question ought not to be decided merely by pounds, shillings, and pence: it concerned the health and comfort of the seamen; and as long as there was any temptation to adulterate the material of biscuit, which was the case when it was supplied by contract, it was impossible to answer either for the health or the contentment of seamen. When the biscuits were manufactured in the public establishments the seamen knew that there was no temptation to adulterate it.

said, it was highly wrong to insinuate that those who professed economy would run the risk of injuring the health of the seamen for the sake of a few pounds. They would do no such thing; but Government might as easily secure against adulteration when the biscuit was supplied by contract as when it was made by its own servants. It must contract for wheat; and might it not be imposed on by bad wheat as well as by bad flour or bad biscuit? What had been advanced did not convince him that the Government ought not to contract for the provisions of the Navy. The ships of the East India Company were supplied by contract, and whenever any of the provisions so supplied were found of inferior quality, the contractors were called upon to make the deficiency good. It was impossible for Government to manufacture flour as cheaply at Deptford as individuals could procure it at present in the south of Ireland. That establishment was kept up as a mere pretext, and he was of opinion, that if due economy were used, this Victualling department might be reduced at least 50,000l. or 60,000l.

was of opinion, even if meal were an exception to the general rule, that the present mode of supplying salt-meat to the navy was at once unnecessary, useless, and expensive. He had no doubt that all the manufacturing accounts of Government were losing accounts. The hon. Secretary at War had argued some time ago that we ought to keep up a manufactory for swords and cuirasses. He was certain that if the hon. Secretary were to go into the market he could purchase them at half the price which he was paying for their manufacture.

complained of the extravagant amount of this vote. Some years ago it was not more than 25,000l., now it was upwards of 130,000l. He then objected to a charge of 724l. in the Deptford yard for rent and taxes paid to the Inspecting Agent of Transports. Now he thought that we had premises enough at Deptford, without going to the expense of hiring a house at such an enormous rent for any officer.

explained, that the sum included the rent of a wharf where trans- ports were unloaded, which would not be a permanent charge.

wished to know whether they were to expect any large reduction in these yards as to materials and to artificers. If he understood the evidence given by a gallant Admiral before the Finance Committee rightly, we should not require to have any more ships of the line built after the year 1830, and the yards would not be wanted, except to put down some large frigates to meet those which bad been lately built by America and France. We had now 350 ships of war, a larger number than we could man within any short period after the commencement of a war. Could we, therefore, be justified in keeping up our enormous ship-building establishment for ever? From the evidence given by Mr. Barrow, he thought that a very large saving, indeed, might be effected in this department, which had been as slovenly managed as any public department with which he was acquainted. From the conclusion of the war in 1815, the Admiralty had let the expense of this department go on without examination, until the year 1821. Then they found out that a reduction of 60,000l. might be made in it; but that beneficial discovery was not carried into effect till 1822. A gallant Admiral, for whom he felt sincere respect, had clearly intimated to the Finance Committee that he did not think that the Admiralty had done all which they could do in reducing the expenditure of this department, and had expressed an opinion that the Finance Committee should strengthen the hands of the Admiralty by giving an opinion to that effect. He was certain that if that gallant Admiral would apply himself to the examination of the different details of this Vote, he would be able to make a large reduction in this head of expenditure.

complained, that the hon. member for Abingdon had misrepresented, though he believed very unintentionally, his evidence before the Finance Committee. He had said, that we had now a certain number of ships of the line, and that by 1830 all of these would be in a complete state. In stating that, he by no means meant to assert that all our naval force would by that time be complete: for it happened that we were at present short of frigates. Besides, though we had 350 ships on the list, they were not all in an efficient state. We must keep up our naval establishment to a certain amount, in reference to the amount of other nations. He did not think that the hon. member for Montrose wished to put down the dock-yards entirely. He had himself long been of opinion that the expense of the dock-yards might be reduced; indeed, he had been busily employed in effecting such a reduction. A proof of it might be seen in the single fact, that Government had within a few years reduced 500 salaried officers in the dockyards, whose salaries amounted to nearly 100,000l. a year, without at all injuring the efficiency of the yards. The state of those yards at present by no means answered the description of them at the time when Mr. Barrow gave his evidence. Many reductions had been made since that time, and more were in progress. We had recently completed a new system of frigates, and had reduced this year 120,000l. in the wages, &c, of the yards. There was only one point on which he had wished to strengthen the hands of the Admiralty with greater power. He had told the committee that it was doubtful to many—it had never been doubtful to him—whether it was proper to discharge from the dock-yards in time of peace those shipwrights whose services we had employed when they were so much wanted during the war. During the present year the Admiralty had taken a very strong measure for the better regulation of these artificers. Formerly in the dock-yards every one was allowed to take as many chips away as he could carry. The consequence was, that half the time of the workmen was spent in making chips. Then the Admiralty came to the resolution of giving them an allowance in money instead of this permission, which necessarily led to much waste. Now the Admiralty had taken away this allowance, with a view of keeping more of them employed. Besides, a reduction of expense in this department might be expected in the ordinary course of nature. The old shipwrights would every day be dying off, and it was not intended to take new ones in their places. Our dock-yard establishment, even as at present constituted, was lower than it was in 1803, when Earl St. Vincent reduced it, as some thought, below its proper standard.

said, that he was glad to hear that we had now, in the fifteenth year of peace, made those reductions which ought to have been made immediately on the termination of the war. It was, however, a severe reflection upon preceding administrations that they had not been made sooner. He wished to know whether there was to be any reduction in the scale of allowances paid to the Commissioner of the Dock-yard at Plymouth for example, who received 1,000l. a year; he had a Secretary who received 450l.; there were two Master-attendants who received between them 950l. a Master-shipwright who had 650l. a year, and various other officers. He wished to know if all these salaries were to be kept up.

said, that no alteration would be made in the scale of those allowances. Some of the offices would be, abolished, but the salaries of those which remained would continue unaltered.

asked, whether it was the intention of Government to revise the bounty on slaves.

said, that, although this country was subject to great expense in order to suppress the Slave-trade, he thought it would be unwise to abandon that object suddenly. The subject, however, was under the consideration of Government.

to say, that he approved of this Vote. He was glad to find that the young men now paid for their education. Formerly this establishment stood the country in 3,245l. a year, and it was now reduced to 845l. He thought that the Military College ought to be placed on the same footing. 105,000l. to defray the Salaries and Allowances of the Officers and Men on board Vessels in ordinary for 1830, and 27,870l. for defraying the expense of the Packet Service, for 1830, were all voted i without remark.

, in moving for a sum of 854,000l. for defraying the Half-pay of Naval Officers, observed, that a regulation had lately been made, by which promotion in the Navy would be retarded, and by that means a great saving would be effected under this head.

said, that the regulation alluded to must be of very recent date, for he understood that two promotions had lately been granted at Plymouth, by the flag-officer, Lord Northesk.

observed, that the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty thought it was but fair towards those individuals to grant them that promotion which they had been serving for three years to obtain.

to observe, that there was in one page a superannuation allowance of 456l. to Mr. W. Shield, and in the next page 500l. as a pension to Mr. W. Shield in the character of a Commissioner. He wished for some explanation.

answered, that this gentleman had served for a long time at Plymouth, at Woolwich, and Chatham, as Commissioner. His superannuation allowance was calculated on the time he had served, and the salary he had received in the civil office. Mr. Shield was upwards of seventy years of age, and had been for a long period in the active service of the Navy. His superannuation allowance amounted to 466l. or about 25s. a day. His pension was his half-pay.

said, nothing could be more preposterous than that an officer, living in a dock-yard, and possessing every comfort, should receive a salary of greater amount than if he were employed in serving his country abroad.

said, this individual received his superannuation allowance under an Act of Parliament—his half-pay was granted for forty years' service.

observed, that it was not correct to say that those individuals got double what they would have done had they continued actively employed in the Navy. Had they remained in the naval service, they would now have been Admirals, with much larger allowances. Mr. Shield had been forty years in the naval service before he entered the civil service, in which he had been twenty years, and he was now nearly seventy years of age. 1,500l. to defray the Salaries of Chaplains in the naval service; and 270,000l; towards defraying the expense of the Out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital were also voted.

complained, that by the existing Act of Parliament, a marine, who entered the service at twenty years of age, was entitled to claim his discharge and pension after he had served twenty-one years. Thus a perfectly healthy man of forty-one might claim a salary of 18l., 25l., 26l. or 27l., according to circumstances. When such a man returned to his native village, he found his old com- panions scarcely receiving for their laborious exertions as large an income as his retired allowance.

said, the statement was true. A marine might obtain his discharge and a pension after twenty-one years service; but the pensions were under consideration. Some alteration would probably take place in the Act of Parliament to which the hon. Member had alluded.

said, he hoped that, in proposing the Motion of which he had given notice, he should not be deemed to trespass improperly or unnecessarily on the time of the Committee, while he made a few observations. In the first place, he would say, it was not his fault that the Motion had not been brought forward at an earlier period. He had given many successive notices of his intention to bring the matter under consideration; but circumstances had prevented him from introducing it sooner. He considered the proposition which he was about to submit to the Committee as one of very considerable importance; but he feared that its consideration would not be enhanced in consequence of the subject being taken up by so humble an individual as himself. He observed in the Estimate which they were now called on to vote, the names of two individuals, the Hon. R. Dundas and the Hon. W. L. Bathurst, to the former of whom was granted a pension of 500l., and to the latter a pension of 400l., making a total charge of 900l. on the country. This charge he wished to have disallowed by the House. The former of those gentlemen was a reduced Commissioner of the Navy, the latter was a reduced Commissioner in the Victualling department. The column in which the time of service was usually marked was in those two instances left blank, and he concluded that this gave a very proper and significant description of the services of those gentlemen, for if not nil, essential they certainly had not been. The situations appeared to have been created purposely for the parties; and shortly after they were appointed to them the offices were abolished. Then these pensions were created. They had heard much of the constant assiduity and labour which Ministers showed in considering what places and pensions could be abolished without detriment to the public service; and he for one acknowledged that he was somewhat astonished when he found that the amount of saving effected by all this anxiety was a little more than 1,000,000l. a year. If they were to rely only on the assiduity of Ministers to curtail the expenditure, he must say, that he thought the case desperate when he saw these pensions granted in the last year. In speaking of those pensions he knew very well that the sum of 900l. was a mere trifle in the expenditure of the country; but a grant, though small in amount, might be monstrous in principle. To those young gentlemen he imputed no blame; the blame must fall on the Ministers, and on two of them particularly—he meant the fathers of those individuals. It was well known that they were noblemen who for a great number of years occupied, with little intermission, some of the most important and lucrative situations in the Government. Viscount Melville, at the present moment, presided as First Lord of the Admiralty, and Earl Bathurst was now Lord President of the Council, one of the Tellers of the Exchequer, and Joint Clerk of the Crown. Their grandfathers were also men of high consideration. One of them for many years filled the situation of Lord High Chancellor of England, and the other was a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, holding places which produced great emoluments, and performing services which were rather equivocal. Now, that these gentlemen, gorged with the public money, should require for their families, or even condescend to accept such miserable pensions, and that too at a time of public distress, did appear to him, and he would not shrink from expressing his opinion, neither would he state it more harshly than the case required, but it did appear to him to be paltry. Though, abstractedly considered, these pensions might seem small, yet they appeared very large when they were compared with the remuneration of a vast number of persons whose services had been most brilliant, and whose exertions had added to the greatness of the country. He would take the liberty of naming two of those individuals, and he had not the least hesitation in naming them, for they were men who could not be mentioned without awakening recollections of national glory, and exciting feelings of admiration and gratitude. They were Admiral Bowen and Admiral Barlow—the one twenty years, the other somewhat less than twenty, in the civil service of the navy,—the former had a pension of 500l. the latter a pension of 450l. per annum. It was true, indeed, that Admiral Barlow had his half-pay in addition to his pension of 450l. To Mr. Dundas a pension of 500l. was granted; but he believed that he held the situation of Commissioner for a very short time; and during the time he held it, if he mistook not, that gentleman was engaged on two diplomatic missions. ["No, no," from the Ministerial benches.] He was employed at least on one; but if he recollected accurately, he had gone to St. Petersburg with the Duke of Devonshire on one mission, and with Lord Heytesbury on another. He would next call the attention of the House to that meritorious officer Sir Thomas Foley, who had his half-pay of 750l., and Sir Thomas Hardy, the captain of the great Nelson, who had 450l. per annum. These were men who had served their country in every climate, and who had asserted her honour in many a bloody action. The places given to Mr. Dundas and to Mr. Bathurst were places held during pleasure. It was, therefore, perfectly in the power of his Majesty's Ministers to dismiss them with or without pension, according to the service which they had performed. But what must the people think of the professions made by Ministers when pensions like these were granted,—pensions that were without precedent,—pensions for which no adequate service had been rendered? Now he would ask, on what ground was it possible that these pensions could have been given? Could the act be defended on the ground of custom? He believed not; but even if it could, he was not aware of any abuse in existence that might not be defended, certainly not justified, on that ground. He would ask, what was the use of boasting of alleviating the sufferings of the people, when pensions such as these were allowed? These individuals were first improperly placed in these situations, and, when they were removed from them, they were with equal impropriety pensioned on the country. By such a system, a number of persons belonging to that noble profession, the Navy, who had infinitely higher claims to office, and were at least equally calculated to act in office, were excluded from beneficial employment; for he would say, that no young men were better educated for all useful purposes than those who entered the navy now were. He really hoped and trusted, that the Members of that House would, this night, by their vote, put an end to such a lavish and improper use of the public money. He trusted, that in this case, at least, they would show some fellow-feeling for their constituents, and prove that they were anxious to represent their wishes and to relieve their wants. He would say nothing farther on the subject, except by repeating his opinion, and it was a strong one,—that the grant and existence of these pensions were highly improper, and that the conduct of those who acquired them for their families, who had no just claim on the public, and who could not possibly want them, was such as he could not denominate otherwise than as paltry. In his mind also, Ministers, in allowing giants of this nature, were guilty of a mockery of the public distress. He then moved, "That the proposed grant of 174,584l. 9s. 4d. should be reduced by deducting from it the sum of 900l.

begged to assure the hon. Baronet that he was not one of those who imputed blame to him for the delay that had taken place in bringing on the present discussion—he was aware that the delay had been occasioned by an unwillingness to impede the public service by interposing unnecessary obstacles to the progress of the estimates. He felt anxious to address the Committee on this particular subject, because he thought the hon. Baronet laboured under an erroneous impression, in which in all probability other hon. Members participated, as to the conduct of the Treasury in giving its sanction to this Vote being submitted to Parliament. He thought he should best satisfy the Committee by stating the circumstances of the case, and the grounds on which the Treasury had proceeded in this particular instance, laying aside, as he intended to do, much of the extraneous matter which the hon. Baronet had introduced in the course of his speech. He said "extraneous," because he did not conceive it to be his duty, in considering cases of superannuation such as the present, to examine whe- ther the ancestor of an individual had been Lord High Chancellor of England, or had held a high office in Scotland; it was not his duty to decide cases by the pedigree of individuals. The Treasury had dealt with these cases by a reference to considerations which would have applied equally to the lowest or the highest person in the King's dominions, and he was not conscious of any error in having done so. The present discussion arose from a considerable reduction which Government thought it their duty to make in the civil department of the navy. Two Commissioners of the Navy Board, and one Commissioner of the Victualling Department had been reduced. It appeared proper to select the two persons in question for reduction: one of the gentlemen, who was a Commissioner of the Navy Board, was appointed to an office then vacant, consequently the charge of his salary as a Commissioner was extinguished without deduction on account of allowance. There remained the other two Commissioners whose names had been introduced on this occasion to be dealt with, and their cases were brought before the Treasury. As to the precise nature of the services of these individuals, he was not prepared to answer. He thought it rather unfortunate that the length of their service had not been stated in the Estimate, but he believed that their service was of about four years' duration, the appointments having taken place in 1825. In considering these cases, the Treasury felt bound to adhere to the principle on which, upon the reduction of Boards at former times, officers had received allowances. Here he might observe, that offices of this description, although, technically speaking, held during pleasure, were always considered as granted for the life of the party, or during good behaviour. The reductions in the members of the Revenue Board had been considered on the same ground as the present, and the Treasury proceeded on the principle of effecting a considerable saving in the public expenditure by the removal from office of several persons, who, be it remembered, had embarked in their several employments with the idea that their situations were to be permanent. The Treasury was the more disposed to adopt this view of the case, because persons embarking in such offices frequently abandoned some profession which they had previously embraced, and lost those opportunities of advancement which they would otherwise have had in their several professions. These two gentlemen were precisely in that situation. Mr. Bathurst, although called by the hon. Baronet a very young gentleman, had been a considerable time at the bar [a laugh. He really did not see what there was to attract hon. Gentlemen's laughter in the circumstance of a Gentleman pursuing an honourable profession. It might appear ridiculous to some hon. Members; but to him it seemed an honourable path for a man to pursue, whatever might be his rank in life. Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Dundas, who had both embarked in different professions, abandoned them on being put into the situations of Commissioners of the Navy, and the principle of compensation and allowances when reduced, applied perfectly to them. The commissioners who were appointed several years ago to inquire into several of our public establishments, with a view to reduction, recommended an allowance of two-thirds of the usual salary, where the service had been for a less period than twenty years, and three-fourths where the period of service extended to more than that time. In looking at other cases of reduction, where it was recommended to abolish inferior offices, and where allowances of an inferior rate were granted, it appeared that persons holding subordinate offices in the Customs for a less period than ten years were to have half their salary, and those who had served longer were to have two-thirds. Now the Treasury, in dealing with the present cases, did not avail itself of the rule laid down with respect to commissioners and high officers removed from the public service, but looked to the lowest scale that applied to subordinate offices. Besides, the Treasury insisted that the Admiralty should appoint these two gentlemen (who had been so reduced) to offices as they became vacant, in order to relieve the country from the charge of their allowances. If the Treasury were to be guided by the rule antecedently adopted, it could not decide differently in similar cases, according to the rank of the parties, and it was fully justified in submitting the present vote to the Committee. Let him advert to one circumstance, which at least showed that there was no wish to benefit particular individuals in the present instance, but that the object was to effect ft saving in the public expenditure—what would have been more easy than to have made this arrangement on the footing of former arrangements of a similar nature, and taking as objects of reduction persons who had served longer than these individuals, to have granted a larger allowance to them, and to have still retained these two gentlemen as commissioners at their full salaries. This was on the supposition that the Treasury was inclined to do what was incorrect—but it had acted differently, and solely with a view to public advantage. In the other case, Ministers would have imposed a heavier charge upon the public, but the present course showed that they had a bonâ fide intention to advance the public service, and pay the utmost attention to principles of economy. He had stated the history of the transaction, and trusted the House would consider it on the same principle as any other similar case. If gentlemen had the fortune or the misfortune to be born of honourable families,—if their ancestors had distinguished themselves in the service of the public, he confessed he could not see, either in the circumstance of their families, or of the services of their ancestors, any thing to disentitle those gentlemen to the fair consideration which the House would be prepared to afford in another case.

observed, that whatever blame was imputable on the ground of the omission of the length of service of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst in the Estimate attached to him; it was intended that the period of these gentlemen's services should appear, and the hon. Comptroller of the Navy had brought him a copy filled up with these items, but, owing to a mistake of his own, a rough copy in which they were omitted had been brought down.

was of opinion, that the transaction in question was blameable; but at the same time thought, that the fault did not attach to any particular member of the Cabinet, but to Ministers generally, for sanctioning a vote which involved a most extraordinary principle of superannuations and allowances. Although it did not appear on the Estimates what had been the length of service of these two gentlemen, it was stated that it did not exceed four years. Was that, he asked, a fair period of service for which to grant an allowance? This was to extend the terms of the Act of Parliament under which superannuations were granted, and involved an unjustifiable departure from its principles. It had been said, that these gentlemen had given up professions and embarked in these offices for life to the exclusion of other prospects. Unfortunately, however, for this statement, we found one of the gentlemen, subsequently to his appointment as Commissioner, accepting a diplomatic situation [hear, and cries of "No"]: at least he gave up his office, and accepted a situation in a diplomatic mission, and now he was to be compensated for the loss of an office to which he could not be fairly said to devote his time, having been put into another situation. When he looked at the enormous amount of superannuations, he thought the Committee would not be justified if it did not mark by its vote the utmost reprobation of this transaction. Within three years of 1810, the amount of superannuation allowances had doubled. Between 1810 and 1815, the superannuation allowance to the officers of the Customs alone had increased from 29,000l. to 100,000l. Notwithstanding the Act of 1824, and the expressed opinion of the House of Commons, superannuations had increased since that time from 384,000l. to 488,000l. With such an example before them, it would be a gross neglect of duty if the Members did not oppose the vote.

said, he had heard with astonishment the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, charge the hon. Baronet with introducing extraneous matter into his statement. Never was there a more plain unvarnished tale than that of the hon. Baronet. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was full of extraneous matter. The right hon. Gentleman said, that in his opinion the case of the highest and the lowest individual ought to be considered on the same principle, or simply in reference to the circumstances of it. He hoped it always would be so. But pensions and allowances ought to be granted for public services, and casualties, and what could the committee say when it found pensions of 400l. and 500l. granted to individuals, for what?—for doing nothing at all. The hon. Member proceeded to say he had submitted a memorial of the strongest nature to Government with respect to an individual of unimpeached character, who was eighty-four years of age, and had served thirty years in the army, applying for an addition of a paltry sixpence a-day to the allowance of this highly respectable individual—and what answer did he receive? That no additional grant could be afforded. And why? Because this person had been worn out in the public service. Here, however, were two hon. gentlemen of noble descent, the sons of members of a ministerial party, and they got 900l. a year for having done nothing. By the way, if they had not been sons of Ministers, perhaps they would not have obtained their allowances just so readily. The hon. Member went on to read the memorial of serjeant Duncan Macdonald. It stated that the petitioner was an Out-pensioner of Chelsea Hospital; that he had been seventeen years in the 66th regiment of foot, and had served five years in the West Indies; and that he was thirteen years drill serjeant of the South Lincoln Militia. [Laugh]. Gentlemen might laugh at this mention of an old constitutional force, which it was the fashion to treat with contempt in that House, notwithstanding we might one day want it. The hon. and gallant Member again referred to the memorial, which stated, that memorialist was eighty-four years of age, and in a slate of blindness, and prayed for some further allowance. The hon. Member then read the answer to the memorial, in which it was stated, that the petitioner had been discharged in consequence of being worn out in the service, and not for the disabilities of which he now complained; and on this ground that he was not entitled to an increase of allowance, having received his full share at the period of his discharge. Here was an individual worn out, after a service, not of four, but of seventeen years, and yet he was refused an addition of 6d. a-day, while these gentlemen had 900l. a-year between them. He felt that he was discharging his duty in what he was saying, and while he was assured of that, the smiles or the frowns of the House were alike indifferent to him.

said, that whatever opinions might be entertained in the House upon this subject, there was but one opinion upon it out of doors. It might be unfortunate that the period of these gentlemen's services was omitted; it might be unfortunate that they were the sons of Cabinet Ministers; it might be unfortunate that they held other places; but of this he was quite sure,—namely, that all these unfortunate circumstances made it also very unfortunate that these pensions should have been granted. It was quite impossible that these appointments could be defended; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not defended them; the right hon. Secretary (Mr. Peel) would not defend them. Indeed, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking, he thought he saw upon the cheek of the right hon. Secretary something like the blush of shame, which seemed to say, "A profligate case has happened once, but it shall not happen again; erubuit—salva res est." He thought it very creditable to the right hon. Secretary that he had not risen to defend this proposition. He knew nothing of these gentlemen personally, and he did not deal with the question personally; but he could not help seeing that one of them held a place of 1,000l. a year, and that the same gentleman had held another situation—that of Commissioner of Bankrupts. He did not mean to say, that there was any intention to create in this country what were formerly called in France "Ministerial families;" but he begged to ask, what the public would think when they found that men were placed on a level with persons who had performed great public services, merely because they happened to be sprung from certain ancestors. Such a system would and must discourage the servants of the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they had laughed because they found a scion of a noble house taking up an honourable profession. But they had not laughed at that, nor had they laughed at a noble scion abandoning that profession. What they had laughed at, but what the country would be indignant at, if these votes were passed, was, that noble scions who could not get briefs at the bar, managed to get themselves pensioned by the public. He would venture to say that never had any Government before received so much independent support as the present Government had received; but that support must cease when it was found that the pension-lists were filled with the sons of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

begged to call the attention of the Committee to the real question before it; that question was, whether there was any thing in the situations of these gentlemen which ought to induce the House to refuse in their case what they would not refuse in similar cases. There was no instance in which persons removed in consequence of the abolition of offices bad been denied some remuneration. Such was the present case. The allowance, moreover, was purely of a temporary nature; for these two persons were to be appointed to the first civil situations which should fall vacant in the naval department.

said, that he should not have intruded himself upon the House but for the unnecessary personality in which the hon. Baronet who brought forward the subject had thought proper to indulge. [Cries of "no, no,"] No! Why, the hon. Baronet had described the gentleman to whom he alluded as the son of a noble Lord who held office, and as the grandson of another noble Lord whom he called a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, who had performed somewhat equivocal services. Now it was impossible to mistake the allusion which the hon. Baronet intended to convey by the words "equivocal services;" but he thought that he might confidently appeal to the result of the circumstances to which the hon. Baronet alluded, as a complete answer to the calumny. In describing the noble Lord—for whose memory he could not but feel the deepest respect—as having been a Viceroy in Scotland, the hon. Baronet had only given him an occasion to say, that he was proud of such an ancestor. The support which that noble Lord received from the people of Scotland during his life-time, and the monument which had been raised to his memory in that country since his death, were sufficient proofs of the estimation in which his noble ancestor was held in Scotland.

said, that this question had been argued as though the vote were one of course, whereas it was clearly subject to the determination of the House. He hoped, however, that the vote of that night would establish the fact, that no person should have a pension who had not performed actual services.

, in explanation, begged to say, that when he called the late Lord Melville a sort of Viceroy of Scotland, he alluded to an office and to duties which no longer existed. As to the expression "equivocal services," he could assure the hon. Member, that he had no intention of hinting at the circumstances to which the hon. Member had alluded. Indeed, that circumstance never once entered his mind. But his meaning was, that the late Lord Melville belonged to a particular party, and his services, however approved by that party, were equivocal to the rest of the nation.

said, he was glad he had given way to the hon. Baronet, whose explanation, he was sure, must be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman who had expressed himself on the subject with a degree of warmth that the circumstances undoubtedly justified. The hon. Member for Westminster was mistaken in supposing that he disapproved of the proposition; but he could assure that hon. Member, that he was not insensible to the value of that independent support which, the hon. Member truly said, the present Government had received. Most sorry should he be to lose such support; and never, to the latest day of his existence, could he forget the conduct pursued by the Gentlemen on the other side of the House on the great measure of last Session. The manner in which the Gentlemen opposite gave their support to the Government at that time could never be forgotten by him; and he thought that the conduct pursued by those Gentlemen on that occasion reflected the highest credit on the political parties of this country. With respect to the present proposition, he agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last as to the nature of it. It was only a proposition made by the Government, which the House would reject or allow as it thought fit. It was a mere estimate, which, if the House thought improper, it would be its duty to reject. He begged of hon. Members, however, to consider what the real nature of the proposition was, before they came to a decision upon it. It was a proposition which arose out of a revision of the establishments of the country which the Government had thought it their duty to make. The course which had been pursued in this case by his Majesty's Ministers had been to take away the youngest officers, and instead of a salary of 1,000l. to give them 450l., until some' other employment offered for them. But the main question was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers in the measure, and he would read to the Committee the official correspondence which had taken place respecting it. The right hon. Gentleman here read the following letters:—

"Admiralty Office, March 20th, 1829.

"SIR—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that their Lordships have given directions for praying New Patents for the Navy and Victualling Boards, the effect of which will be the immediate reduction of two members of the former, and one of the latter Boards, and the further reduction of a third Member of the Navy Board, on the death, removal, or resignation, of Mr. Tucker or Sir Robert Seppings, the present Joint-Surveyors of the Navy. The two Commissioners of the Navy who are reduced are Captain J. M. Lewis and the Hon. Robert Dundas, the former of whom will be appointed to Sheerness and Chatham Yards, in the room of Commissioner Cunningham, who retires; and the reduced Commissioner of the Victualling Board is the Hon. W. L. Bathurst.

"My Lords command me to request you will state this arrangement to the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, and inform me whether their Lordships are of opinion that any retired allowance, and to what amount, should be granted to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst on the abolition of their offices, which have usually been deemed hitherto as held during life or good behaviour. Mr. Dundas has held the office four years, having been one year previously attached to the British Embassy at Madrid and Lisbon; and Mr. Bathurst has held his situation nearly four years.

"Their Lordships think it right to add, for the information of the Lords of the Treasury, that Mr. Dundas is eligible to two of the reserved Commissionerships of the Navy; but that as all the members of the Victualling Board, except the Chairman, are professional, Mr. Bathurst would not be eligible to any seat at the Board, unless as Chairman.

"I am, &c.

(Signed) "JOHN BARROW.

"The Hon. J. Stewart, Treasury."

"Treasury Chambers, April 30th, 1829.

"SIR—Having laid before the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury your letter of the 20th ult., respecting the amount of superannuation allowance to be granted to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst, on their removal from the Navy and Victualling Boards, in consequence of the reduction in the numbers of the Commissioners of those respective Boards, I am commanded by my Lords to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords of the Admiralty, that they observe with satisfaction that their Lordships have made an arrangement for employing in another situation Captain F. M. Lewis, one of the reduced Commissioners of the Navy, and have thus superseded the necessity of raising any question as to any provision for him. And my Lords have no doubt that the Lords of the Admiralty will be equally anxious to adopt a similar course with respect to Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst; and my Lords, therefore, consider that any allowance to be made to them is purely of a temporary nature, to continue only during the period which may elapse before they can be again employed in some civil situation connected with the Civil De- partments of the Navy. My Lords, therefore, see no objection to assigning to them a temporary allowance of one-half of their respective salaries from the period when they ceased, being the proportion allowed to other officers reduced on abolition of their respective offices, under the Minute of this Board of February 2nd, 1825, it being distinctly understood, that Mr. Dundas and Mr. Bathurst are to succeed to the first situations which may be at the disposal of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, for which they may be qualified.

" I am, &c,

(Signed) "J. STEWART."

Those letters showed, the right hon. Gentleman went on to observe, that these allowances were in conformity to the rule of former Governments; they were not the result of any special rule of the existing Government, nor any job. The rule might be wrong, but it was established long before. It did not originate with his noble friend the Duke of Wellington and his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was established when Lord Liverpool and Lord Goderich were in office. The Treasury Minute of February 2nd, 1825, referred to in the letter he had read, related to the Board of Customs; and the rule it laid down was, that the Lords of the Treasury would grant to those officers who had not served ten years, one half of their official salaries. The general rule was the material point of the question; and it was a positive hardship on the sons of Cabinet Ministers, that they only should be liable to animadversion when they are treated according to this rule. The Committee would allow he had not attempted to bias its opinion by any appeal to the passions; but he must say, that considering the difficulties attending the making reductions, it was not quite right to embarrass the Government when it attempted to effect them. He hoped he had said enough to convince the House that his Majesty's Ministers had not been influenced by any corrupt motive in this transaction.

observed, that the House had a right to investigate all the circumstances of these pensions, which, in his opinion, ought not to be granted.

took that opportunity to give notice, that he should move for the abolition of the office of Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance when the Ordnance Estimates should be regularly brought before them.