presented a Petition from Mr. Green, of Whitechapel Road, expressing his satisfaction at that clause in a bill before the House, for the repeal of the punishment of banishment for the second offence of libel, and praying that that clause which required security of 100l. on future newspapers might not pass. The hon. Member, in presenting this petition, expressed his regret at seeing such a clause introduced, and hoped the House might be able to induce Ministers to abandon it. The hon. Member went on to say, that a Return had been laid before the House a few days ago, of the prosecutions for violations of that clause in the Stamp Act, which related to pamphlets, from which it appeared that 161 persons had been prosecuted under that Act in the year 1829, and forty-eight to May, in the present year. Such prosecutions were, he conceived, unjust and oppressive, and he therefore moved for an account of all the expense attending them.

Ordered.

moved for a Return of the expenses connected with the support of Convicts at the Penitentiary at Milbank, from the year 1820 to 1829, distinguishing the number of convicts kept there in each year, the cost of each, and the value of their labour; also Returns of similar expenses incurred in the Hulks and at Bermuda; also an account of the number of convicts sent out to New South Wales in 1828 and 1829, the tonnage of the vessels, cost of freight, and other expenses; also similar Returns respecting convicts sent to Van Dieman's Land and Bermuda.

said, he concurred in the Motion, and in thinking that the expense to which the public was put in the infliction of this punishment, was not repaid by any public advantage. He did not, however, rise to enter into that subject, but to call the attention of the right hon. Secretary opposite to a statement which had been made to him (Sir M. W. Ridley) a few days back, respecting the treatment of some convicts on their arrival at New South Wales. He was informed that in a week after their arrival out at the colony, some of them appeared abroad without any restraint; that they lived in a style of affluence which they could not support here. He alluded to convicts who had been sent out for forgery,—many of whom were living in a style of splendor. Some of them kept their carriages and horses, and in other respects were in the enjoyment of much affluence. He understood that some steps had been taken to correct this evil; but still he felt it his duty to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it.

said, the circumstances to which the hon. Baronet alluded, were amongst the reasons which induced him, on a former evening, to object to transportation as an efficient punishment for forgery. In fact, it was almost impossible that a man who had moved in a respectable rank in life, and who had the command of money, could be made to labour under another who was very much below him in station. He regretted that any thing such as this should occur, yet it was difficult, in a colony which had now nearly lost its character of a penal colony, to prevent the influence which education and rank would naturally acquire. No doubt, however, a limit should be set to indulgence to convicts. With the particular circumstances to which the hon. Baronet alluded, he was not acquainted. Indeed, as the hon. Baronet must be aware, the colony did not come within his department; but no doubt, if they were such as the hon. Baronet had described them, a check ought to be put to them, and he was sure his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, would give the subject all due attention.

did not mention the case with a view to cast any blame on the Government here, or in the colony, but to call attention to it.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman would grant him a committee on Monday to investigate our convict system, he should be able to show its futility as a punishment. The case to which the right hon. Gentleman adverted could not happen if the property of persons sentenced to transportation for forgery were confiscated.

Motion agreed to.

next moved for a variety of Returns connected with the situation of convicts in New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land, the numbers employed by Government, and numbers given out to masters, from 1826 to 1829. Also, for the number of ex-officio informations filed by the Attorney General of New South Wales, from the year 1825. Also a Return of the number of suspensions from office in the colony, by order of the Governor; for this, he said, he would not press, if any objection were made. Also, Returns, stating the number of persons receiving pensions or retired allowances, who had held situations in the colony.

said, he was willing to give the hon. Member every information in his power, as to those points, for the years 1827 and 1828; but the accounts of 1829 had not reached this country yet. To the Return of the number of suspensions by the governor he should object.

Motion, as altered by the wish of Sir G. Murray, agreed to.

moved that a sum not exceeding 5,000l. be granted to his Majesty for the expense of Public Works in Ireland for the year 1830.—Agreed to.

The hon. Member next proceeded to move that "a sum not exceeding 87,970l. be granted to defray the Salaries of the Consuls General, the Contingent Expenses, and the Superannuation Allowances." In reference to this vote, he said, he should find it necessary at present to give a brief explanation. The House would find that there had been a reduction made in the consular department since last year, to the amount of 3,820l. This reduction was attributable to three causes,—partly to the cessation of the consular establishment at Palermo, partly to the decrease of the Vice-consuls in Europe, and partly to the extinction of the superannuation allowance of Mr. Barker. From these three causes, as he had already stated, there was so far a saving to the amount mentioned upon the Estimates now in the hands of the hon. Baronet opposite. It might be remembered that the system of paying Consuls by salaries instead of fees, according to the practice before 1825, had been adopted on the strong recommendation of the hon. member for Aberdeen and the member for Liverpool. In reference to the Act of 6th Geo. 4th, the former hon. Gentleman had most vehemently reprobated the practice of payment by fees, and even stated that no sum from the public funds was too great for the remuneration of the Consuls, provided their functions were competently discharged. With respect to the material reduction of the salaries of Consuls, he submitted that his noble friend at the head of the department, had done all in his power to effect such retrenchment as was consistent with the efficient performance of the duty which the interests of the public demanded. The following reductions were already in progress:—the Consuls salaries were to be reduced, at Rio Janeiro from 2,500l. per annum to 1,500l.; at Pernambuco from 1,200l. a-year to 1,000l.; at Madeira, from 800l. to 600l.; at Ostend, from 600l. a-year to 400l.; at Bogota, from 2,000l. to 800l.; at the Havannah, from 500l. to 300l.; at Lima, from 2,500l. to 1,600l.; and the consular establishment at Palermo was to be abolished altogether. Thus the total reduction would amount to 12,400l. a-year, being at the rate of 40l. per cent on the salaries. He trusted that these changes would prove satisfactory to the House, and that the hon. Baronet would henceforward spare his sarcasms on the present Ministers with respect to the expenditure since 1825, with much of which they had no concern whatever. He had found fault with the expenditure of that period, as if his noble friend, at present at the head of the Foreign Department, or the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been to blame; whereas they were totally free from blame, for over most of that expenditure they had no control or superintendence whatever. Whatever extravagance, therefore, the Government of the day might be alleged to have committed, those who were now in office stood absolved from its participation. He should not enter into further details, proposing to defer doing so until the hon. Baronet had more particularly specified his objections. It was his wish, however, to remove an erroneous impression which had been entertained in consequence of a mistake on the face of the Returns relative to the absence of two of the Consuls from their respective stations, who were each represented to have been a year longer absent than they had actually been. He alluded to Mr. Nugent and Mr. Schenley, who were said to be absent, the one two and the other three years, from 1825 to 1828. In the Returns a mistake had been made and their absence antedated one year. This fact, he hoped would be borne in mind by the hon. Baronet. Before he sat down he might also mention, that a regulation had been adopted by the noble Lord who presided over the Foreign Department, prohibiting Consuls who were absent in future from receiving more than a moiety of their allowance; the other half after defraying the expense of the duties, to be placed to the credit of Government. The allowance for house-rent was also not to begin, in future, till the individual arrived at his post, and should likewise henceforward be placed upon a different footing.

said, he congratulated the House and the country on the after-thought of his Majesty's Ministers respecting the Estimates which had just been explained by his hon. friend; at the same time, it added very considerably to the trouble he had imposed on himself, as his hon. friend must be aware. The whole of the calculations on which he proposed to make reductions had been formed from the Estimates, on reference to which he had judged these reductions to be necessary; but his hon. friend now said, not out of deference, of course, to the sarcasms which displeased him so much, or out of deference to the votes of that House passed since these Estimates were framed, but from its own love of economy, that the Government had made large reductions in these Estimates. In some of the particulars mistakes had been made, and Consuls who were absent had been described as away from their posts two years instead of one. Some of the greatest apparent abuses were now, therefore, found out to be merely errors of print, and were to be censured in the compositors not in the Ministers. These things were all found out at the eleventh hour, and he had made all his calculations on the Returns supposing them to be correct, and supposing that the Government to call for votes on the Estimates as they had been laid on the Table. He had made his calculations on this supposition, and the reductions he proposed to make were founded on it. After making all these allowances, however, he should still be called on to oppose the vote, which he thought was most exorbitant. The House would recollect that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. friend had both stated that the practice of paying the Consuls by fixed salaries, instead of fees, had arisen from a recommendation which came from the Opposition side of the House. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, was described to have said that he was satisfied that the Government could not fix the salaries of the Consuls too high, provided only the trade was completely free from the payment of fees. This was so much opposed to his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen's usual sentiments, that there was prima facie reason to believe that the statement was an error. But if, by any probability, these words had been used by his hon. friend, meaning that the charges for fees were so enormous that almost any thing would be better than them; if the hon. Member had used these words, they had completely anticipated the conduct pursued by his Majesty's Government. He was himself not of opinion that the public would, in all cases, be better served by substituting salaries for fees. The House would recollect, too, that Mr. Canning thought we ought not to pay the Consuls by fixed salaries instead of fees. He stated that he objected to the measure, but that he had carried it into execution out of deference to the authority of the House, and against his better judgment. With respect to the doubts expressed by Mr. Canning, he thought, it was due to that right hon. Gentleman to state what was his opinion, and to show that he was the unwilling author of the measure, in obedience to the sense of the House. The hon. Gentleman stated, that "when he (Mr. Canning) came last into Office, he found that the opinion of the House had been taken upon the subject of the system to be pursued in relation to our ministers abroad. Whether the opinion had been expressed in a formal vote, or given in a way which only conveyed the sense of the House, he was not quite sure, but he found that he had no discretion to exercise, for it had been determined, that the whole system relative to our Consuls should be done away, and that they should be put on a totally different footing. The new principle was, that the fees should be totally abolished, and that salaries should be substituted, to the extent of affording a remuneration for the loss. He begged leave to state, that his own individual opinion did not concur in this agreement; but he found the point already settled, and his business was only to carry it into execution. Had the point been left to his judgment, or could his opinions have had any influence upon the question, he should have expressed an opinion, that there were many cases in which it would be better to remunerate by fees than by salary. But Government had only to follow a prescribed principle, namely, that all private charges were abolished, and remunerative salaries were to be granted in their stead. The hon. Gentleman's system was, that this should be taken from the trade, from the private merchants, and put upon the country. He (Mr. Canning) was not called upon to approve of this system, nor to say that the details of trade could not bear the burthens in detail which grew out of it. The system adopted was no decision of his." He stated that much out of justice to the memory of that right hon. Gentleman, and to show that he foresaw the great expenditure which the experiment of substituting salaries for fees would entail on the country. He himself was one of those who thought that the substitution of fixed salaries for fees was carried too far. He entertained doubts even if the Customs' Officers might not be paid by fees, and if the public had been benefitted by getting rid of fees paid by persons engaged in trade, and substituting for them fixed salaries paid by the country at large. There was a difference, indeed, between the Customs and other departments of the public serivce. The officers of the customs were employed in collecting a revenue for the public; and, being so employed, they might with propriety be paid by salaries given by the public. But the Consuls were quite different. They did not perform any public services, but services that were beneficial to the great body of the merchants trading to the spots where they resided. They executed little or nothing for the convenience of the public. There was nothing improper in the merchants, to whom their labours were beneficial, paying them by fees for their services. Consuls might then be paid by fees, and not by a fixed salary. He did not know, indeed, any better way, or how it was otherwise possible to induce public officers to do their duty well, than to give them an interest in so performing it. The payment of fees obviously gave the Consuls an interest in residing at the spot; but if they were paid by salaries, they had no motive for residing, and, like our Consuls, were very frequently absent from their stations. That was the case with our Consuls up to the new regulation by the Earl of Aberdeen, who, only giving them half their salary when they were absent, they had now an interest to remain at their stations. These were the effects of the system, and the opinions he had stated were not founded on theory. He would call the attention of the House to the case of several of our Consuls, as stated in the returns. But the House would make allowance for what his hon. friend described as errors which had inadvertently crept in, and which might make him commit some blunder. He would begin with the case of Mr. Ricketts, the Consul to Peru. He went to his post in 1825, and passed that year in preparations, and in his voyage out, and he received for outfit and salary that year, the sum of 3,558l. In 1826, being at his post, he received for salary, 2,500l.; for house rent, 510l.; for a clerk, 250l.; for extras, 503l.; making, in the year 1826, the sum of 3,763l. In 1827, he was on his voyage home, having left his post early in April, and that year he received 2,812l. His hon. friend was very testy about any charges being adverted to previously to the year 1828; but his hon. friend should recollect that most of the Members now on the Treasury Benches were before the year 1828, and, if he did not mistake, in the year 1825, amongst his Majesty's Ministers. Though they might disclaim the expenses of that period, they all form- ed a part of the Administration, as well as Mr. Canning. But passing from the year previous to 1828, he came to that year, and 1829, and he asked his hon. friend how he could justify the circumstance, that during these two years Mr. Ricketts was in England, and received 1,600l. a year. This gentleman, therefore, had been, under Lord Aberdeen's government, allowed to spend two years in England doing nothing, at this large salary; he had passed one year in his voyage out and home, he had been the rest of his time at his post, and for that period, not quite two years, he had received the sum of 13,600l. What he charged as the most flagrant part of the case was, the two years he had been in England, at 1,600l. a year; and for these two years the present Foreign Minister was wholly responsible. He then came to the case of Mr. Nugent, who was one of those whose services were not accurately stated in the return, and he might possibly make a mistake concerning him. This gentleman went in 1825 to Chili, and received the first year 3,050l. In 1826 he was at his post, and received 2,500l. In 1827, as early as June, or he believed he must now say, as the return was not correct, in June, 1828, he returned to England, and received his 2,500l. His hon. friend described the two years, 1828 and 1829, as years of economy. These two years constituted the golden reign of the Earl of Aberdeen,—they were the economical age, not deserving of those sarcasms which his hon. friend charged him with using, and entreated him to abandon in bringing forward his motion; but without a sarcasm he did charge that noble Earl with extravagance, as regarded Consuls up to the beginning of the present week. His hon. friend had stated, that henceforth the Consuls, when away from their posts, were to have only half their salaries; but that had not yet been the case, as he had already stated with regard to the Consul of Peru, who had received his salary of 1,600l. during the two years he had been in England; and it had not been the case with the Consul of Chili, who had received his salary under similar circumstances: one of whom, for two years and a half service, had received, in four years, the sum of 13,600l., and the other had received for one year and a half, 13,050l. The next case he would mention was that of Mr. Mackenzie, who in 1826 was appointed Consul to Hayti. He received 500l. for his outfit, 1,500l. for his salary, 500l. for extras, and 215l. for his voyage out, making in all 2,715l., though he did not leave London till March; thus, for being a few months at his post in 1826, he received 2,715l. But he begged to call the particular attention of the House to the year 1827. Mr. Mackenzie received in that year, his salary, 1,500l.; for a journey into the interior of the island he charged 1,290What he charged as the most flagrant part of the case was.; his house-rent and extras amounted to 1,070l. A commission on his banker's account of 147l., and for his voyage to England 192l., making a total of 4,199l. In 1828 he was in England, and in 1828, when England was under the economic administration of Lord Aberdeen, he received his salary of 1,125l. He was little more than one year at his post, and for that he received a sum of more than 8,000l. He then came to the case of Mr. Schenley, who was one of those whose services were mis-stated in the return. He begged to call the attention of the House to Mr. Schenley in particular. This gentleman had been sent as Vice-consul to Guatemala. In 1825 he received for his outfit 300l., and for his salary 700l.; but he did not go, if he understood the return correctly, that year—he went out in 1826. He was at Guatemala that year and in 1827, and received his salary of 700l., but before the end of 1827 he left Guatemala; and in 1828 he came to England on his full salary. In 1829, under Lord Aberdeen's Foreign Administration, when the public expense had been so much reduced, this gentleman was appointed Consul at Hayti, and received 500l for his outfit. Unless the Returns were erroneous, and he almost hoped his hon. friend would correct him as he read, this was in January; and between January 1829, and January 1830, he received 1,200l. as his salary. The House would be surprised to learn, according to the return, that he was in England yet; that he had not even attempted to go out to Hayti. He remained in England up to that time, and the reason for which he remained the Members of that House would be well able to appreciate. The reason, on the face of the return, for which he remained in England was urgent private business. This was a species of reason which would be very intelligible to the Members of that House. In 1829, then, this gentleman received 1,700l., and never left England; in all, this gentleman had received 4,859l. The pressure of business at Hayti, the House would imagine, could not be very great; but he found in the year 1829, that there was a charge for two Vice-consuls at Hayti. As the Consul was not present, the House would naturally suppose that the Vice-consuls were there attending to their duty. But he found by the return, that Mr. Fisher, the Vice-consul, was also detained in England on urgent private business. He was in England the whole of 1827, receiving a salary of 550l.; and in England the whole of 1828, receiving a salary of 550l.; and he was in England the greater part of 1829. The Consul then was in England; the Vice-consul also, Mr. Fisher, was in England; and the second Vice-consul, the one who was on the spot, and did all the business, Mr. Thompson, received 500l. a year. He was at a loss to know what to say, to carry conviction to the minds of Members, if this failed. It was necessary, however, to glance a little at the testy anxiety to be economical which was said to be displayed by the Earl of Aberdeen and the rest of the Ministers. The canker of the country, which took away all the available revenue, was the great expense of superannuation. If there were one point more insisted on than another by the Finance Committee—one point more than another on which its recommendations were urgent—it was against the great and alarming increase of superannuations and other charges under the head of Diplomatic Expenses. The committee, in the first place, strongly recommended that no person should receive any superannuation or pension till after he had received his first appointment fifteen years, nor till after he had been ten years in actual service. The committee had strongly recommended a reduction in the diplomatic pensions, and that they should not exceed 40,000l. Instead of 40,000l., however, they amounted to upwards of 50,000l., and a great portion of this had arisen from increasing the superannuations of Consuls. He held in his hand a return, which showed that the sum appropriated to superannuation for Consuls, had gone on regularly increasing. The sum allotted to this service was in

In 1828, the period when Lord Aberdeen began to economise, it was 4,270l.; 1829, 4,870l,; and in 1830, the year of economy, it was 5,300l. Here, then, was a continual increase in that species of expense which was most reprobated by the Finance Committee. This subject brought to his recollection, that a committee of that House had been appointed to inquire into the subject of Superannuation, on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and that committee remained involved in mystery. The right hon. Gentleman had done him the honour to place his name on the committee, which was appointed, he believed, nearly six weeks ago, and he had never yet received a summons to attend. The Finance Committee recommended that Ministers should cut off ten per cent from their own salaries, but that had never been attended to. The same committee recommended that the subject of superannuation should undergo revision. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought in a bill on the subject, which he said the House was unwilling to pass, but on that he had his own opinion; in 1829 nothing was done; in 1830 a committee had been appointed, at the Minister's suggestion, but it had never been assembled, because the Parliament was drawing to a close; and in 1831 something would, perhaps, be done to regulate the superannuations so urgently recommended by the Finance Committee, and to take off ten per cent from the Ministers' salaries. He wished shortly, in order to make the subject clear, to state to the House a comparison or two, which might not be unimportant. He would first call its attention to the difference of charge for diplomatic and consular expenses in 1792 and the present time. The amount, then, of diplomatic and consular expenses in 1792, including the charge for superannuations and pensions, was 113,927l. in 1829 it amounted to 366,000l. The charge for Consuls alone, in the estimate for 1830, was 121,820l., being upwards of 8,000l. more than the charge for the whole diplomatic expenses in 1792. There was another view he might take of the subject. He would compare the whole amount of the official value of the exports and imports to South America with the charge for our diplomatic relations with that country, showing what per centage that amounted to on the value of our trade. The official value, then, of our exports and imports to Mexico in 1829, was 731,557l. The expense of ambassadors was 4,041l., and of Consul 3,500l.; together 7,541l. or 1l. and 7d. per cent of the whole value of our exports and imports. He chose the official value because it was more simple and easy, though his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) reminded him that the real value was much less, and taking the official value, the expense to Mexico was, as he said, 1l. 0s. 7d. per cent on our whole trade. With respect to Guatemala, the result was even more striking. The value of our exports and imports with that state was 13,811l., the expense of the Consuls was 1,500l., making the expense 10l. 17s. 2d. per cent on the value of our trade. The amount of our exports and imports with all the South American States was 311,470,000l., the expenses of our ambassadors was 27,421l., and of Consuls, 33,100l., making together 60,521l. or a charge of one-half per cent on the gross amount of all our trade with the whole Continent of South America. He knew that any allusion to the United States of America was not generally very palatable to the House, and he for one did not like to institute comparisons between that country and this, but he held in his hand (showing a small slip of paper), on that simple piece of paper the account of all the expenses of the civil government of the United States, including its diplomatic expenses, obtained from an authentic source, and with the permission of the House he would read it. The whole charge then for the civil government of the United States was—

Making, in the whole, 92,500 dollars for the entire charge of the civil government of the United States, or, in English money, 20,812l. There were, besides, three commissioners of the navy, with 3,500 dollars each, with 5,000 for the Major-general, commanding-in-chief—making the whole charge for the civil and military government of the United States, 24,299l. But to come to what was more german to the matter in hand, the United States had three Consuls-general in Europe, and he believed it would not be supposed that the interests of its people were not as well attended to as those of any other nation, and they were all paid by fees. The Consuls-general were at London, Paris, and Madrid. The Consul-general at London had something to do for American seamen and for the public service, and he received a salary of 2,000 dollars a year. The Consuls at Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis, had diplomatic functions to perform, and they received 4,500 and 2,000 dollars per year; but all the Consuls employed by the United States received from the public purse not more than 3,712l. per year. He knew that this was a republic, but some of its regulations might be adopted by us with advantage—limited monarchy as we were—and the American mode of paying the Consuls was of this description. The Consuls of the United States were paid by fees, and each Consul entered into a bond that he would agree to a certain tariff of fees, which was fixed by the Secretary of State, and would not exact any more; and these fees were so moderate that the Consul of Liverpool, the most lucrative of all the consular stations, received only 1,000l. a year. Moreover, if any Consul charged more than the proper fee, he was instantly dismissed, so that a proper attention to the interests of the American merchants was obtained by a salary of 1,000l. The diplomatic expenses of the United States were on a scale equally moderate. That country had seven Ministers Plenipotentiary in England, France, Russia, &c, at a salary of 9,000 dollars a year, each having a Secretary of Legation at 2,000 dollars salary, and seven Chargé d'Affaires, with proportionate salaries, and the whole of its diplomatic expenses was 108,000 dollars, or 24,412l. The whole charge for its civil government, diplomatic and consular expenses was 52,420l. not half the cost of our consular establishment alone. The hon. Baronet then observed, that he was not an admirer of a republic, though he quoted its establishments as proper for us to imitate, and he warned the Ministers, that having given up influence, and prerogative having passed away, they had no means of governing the country but by obeying public opinion. He did not impugn the institutions under which he was born, and under which he enjoyed so many blessings. He did not want to shuffle the cards again to get a fresh set. He should always support a limited freedom, bearing in mind, though he was a freeman, that he was but a subject, and though he had rights, yet that they were rights under a monarchy. He had a deep stake in the country, too deep to make him, though he advocated republican economy, the friend of republican institutions. But still, bearing in mind the sentiments of the people, he did feel it his duty earnestly to warn the Ministers against the course they were pursuing: it was full of danger. High prerogative had for many years given way to influence; but the present Ministers affected to despise influence, and to rest upon public opinion alone. He would contend that half measures were always dangerous. If they were serious in putting influence aside, there was no course left them but to act up to public opinion—and public opinion was daily becoming more enlightened, and more powerful. The facts which he had stated were known—the public mind was every day becoming more and more attentive to the proceedings of Government, and with all the advantage of our institutions, the people would not fail to cast up the charge at which we maintained them, and to strike a balance between the benefit and the expense. The Ministers had cut down the influence of the Crown to a certain extent: he would caution them how they neglected public opinion. Having now gone farther than he intended when he first rose to address the House, he would next apply himself to the reductions which he should propose to make. He assumed the Russian Consul-general as a standard, whose salary was 1,000l. a year, and he proposed to reduce all Consuls-general to the same sum—allowing, on account of the great expense of living, unwholesome climate, &c. 1,500l. a year to the Consuls of South America. He had intended to propose an amendment for a reduction to a greater extent, but after what had been announced by the hon. Gentleman, he should content himself with proposing a reduction of 8,000l. on the whole of the Estimates. This would make the vote 79,970l., instead of 87,970l.; and on that question he must take leave to call for the sense of the House. Having thus gone over the whole of this branch of the expenditure, he should conclude by observing, that he, for one, had given the Government credit for sincerity when he heard its repeat ed professions of economy at the commencement of the Session. He admitted now, however, that his delusion on that subject had passed away, and that every act of the Government, where economy was concerned, had satisfied him he was deceived. The Finance Committee, a thing discarded, had made but two strong recommendations—the one to reduce the Lieutenant-generalship of the Ordnance; the other to pursue the superannuation system to the extent of ten per cent on all salaries. How far these recommendations had been attended to, the House could tell—how far the promises of retrenchment had been carried into effect, the Treasurer-ship of the Navy and the Lottery Office could bear witness—the superannuations of the commissioners of the latter being the grossest job he recollected since the termination of the war. Mr. Adams, one of the commissioners, had been superannuated at the age of fifty-five, on an allowance of 375l., although he enjoyed other salaries to the amount of 1,200l. Mr. Brooksbank, who had 2,100l. a year, was superannuated on 175l., while a certain unfortunate Captain Frederick, who had been compelled to give up his half-pay when he received the 500l. a year, was now superannuated at the age of sixty-five, on 375l., the same sum as Mr. Adams. He protested against the system pursued by the Government as unjust and extravagant, and calculated to produce dangerous consequences. He knew, indeed, that the Government had taken off taxes, but he also knew that they left those which pressed with grinding force upon the poorer classes,—such as tea, still taxed 100 per cent, sugar taxed at 150 per cent, tobacco taxed 900 per cent., and soap and candles taxed almost as much, while, by a change in the currency, they had fearfully augmented all the public burthens. The present Estimate involved the principle of economy; it was a proper point to rest upon, and he was determined to take the sense of the House on the subject. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving as an Amendment, that 79,970l. be substituted for 87,970l.

defended the conduct of the Government, and complained of the wide latitude of observation which the hon. Baronet had indulged in with reference to the whole of the different branches of public expenditure. It was not his intention at that moment to follow the hon. Baronet through the wide field he had chosen for the exertion of his talents on this occasion; but he took leave to deny the accusations thrown out against the Government, and challenged the hon. Baronet to name an Administration in this country that had ever been so little desirous of exercising for its support, or for the rewards of its adherents, the full extent of political patronage. It was indeed notorious that the Duke of Wellington had, throughout the whole of the period since he had been at the head of affairs, abstained from appointing a single commissionership, although many had become vacant; and that he had sought every occasion to reduce those offices which already existed. Applying himself now to the question more immediately before the House, he denied that the reduction made on the Estimate was any lucky after-thought, as the hon. Baronet seemed to imagine. The Consul at Palermo, who possessed a salary of 1,200l. a-year, had died since the Estimate was made up; two other casualties of the same description had also happened in the same period; and the Government, anxious to reduce the expense as much as lay in their power, had diminished the Estimate by the amount of their salaries. This was the after-thought to which the hon. Baronet alluded. A great deal had been said on the subject of the salaries paid to Consuls. He recollected well, at the time a fixed salary was given to Consuls, instead of paying them by fees, that he had very great doubts of the good effect likely to result from the arrangement; but the sense of the House had been taken on the subject by Mr. Canning, and the arrangement was completed. By a Return, laid on the Table, it was found that the whole amount paid to Consuls by fees, after the shipping interests were relieved from the burthen imposed on them in that respect, was only 61,000l. The total amount now paid in fixed salaries to Consuls-general and Consuls was only 49,100l., so that, in fact, the country was a gainer by the exchange of about 12,000l., and every opportunity was laid hold of to make further reductions. It was at the same time, however, expressly declared, when this scale of salaries was fixed, that the Consuls should not be allowed to engage in trade. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could well understand that there were places in which a Consul could not engage in trade and perform efficiently the duties of his situation; but there were also others in which he might trade without doing any injury to the interests of those who were under his protection; and he, under that opinion, had spoken to Lord Aberdeen on the subject, with a view of reducing the salary wherever the permission to trade was given. In many places accordingly this relaxation of trading had been allowed and the salary reduced; but the noble Lord having consulted some of those persons engaged extensively in trade, whose opinions were valuable on the subject, and having received an intimation that the relaxation of a permission to trade was not agreeable to the mercantile interests, the system had not been pursued further. In his opinion, the hon. Baronet had dealt rather hardly with the Government, in reference to the salaries of the Consuls, for it was well known that those salaries were fixed at the desire of the House, and that the sense of Parliament, as far as its opinions could be known, were taken on their amount at the time of the abolition of the fees. The Government, indeed, was placed in a very painful situation. If it reduced the offices and superannuated the holders, it was exposed to censure for increasing the number of superannuations; and if it permitted those who had given up all other pursuits for the situation of Consul, to hold the office until it fell vacant by casualties, then it was charged with extravagance. With respect to Mr. Nugent, and the other persons mentioned by the hon. Baronet, there could be no doubt that they remained at their posts until bad health compelled them to return. The case of Mr. Schenley, it must be admitted, was somewhat different. That gentleman had been compelled to return home because he was threatened with a ruinous legal proceeding, which was instituted by persons who wished to avail themselves of his absence. He held in his hand the letter in which these circumstances were stated on asking the leave; and he should be happy to show it for the satisfaction of the hon. Baronet, although, in consequence of the allusions it contained to family affairs, he refrained from reading it to the House. After observing that Mr. Mackenzie was not only Consul at Hayti, but the representative of the Government, sent out to make reports on the state of the country, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to contend that the salary of Mr. Bailey, the Consul at St. Petersburgh, had been expressly fixed at 1,000l., because the Russia Company paid him 1,500l. a year as their agent; and if the hon. Baronet took this, the most arduous Consulate of Europe, as the basis of his arrangement, he would find, that instead of reducing the salaries of the Consuls in other places, he would be compelled to increase them. The hon. Baronet thought that America should be taken as an example in the payment of her Consuls; now America paid her Consuls by fees.

was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wilfully misrepresent his expressions. He thought he had particularly guarded himself against its being supposed that he wished our establishments to be regulated by those of the United States.

was not disposed to say more on that part of the subject than that America paid the Consuls by fees—a practice which the House had declared to be unnecessary and impolitic; and he concluded by expressing his opinion, that, where the salaries had been fixed with the approbation of Parliament, it would scarcely be fair to reduce them while they were held by the present possessors, unless they were prepared to increase the superannuations.

supported the Amendment, and hoped the Committee, by its vote that night, would mark its disapprobation of the large expense incurred hitherto by the Consular department. In order to be convinced of the lavish expenditure of the Government in this instance, it was only necessary to refer to a few of the items which had been paid to some of the Consuls. Mr. Pousset, for instance, had received 700l. while at his post in South America: he next year received the 700l. though he remained in England; and next year half that sum.

said, there was a mistake in that account.

said, after that explanation he had no wish to press that particular instance, the more so because there were many instances of a similar description. The hon. Member then called the attention of the committee to the cases of Mr. Schenley and Mr. Nugent, who had been receiving their salaries while others had performed the duty. This was such wasteful expenditure, that he was convinced Parliament would see the necessity of making a material reduction. Government, too, had acted on this principle already: they had appointed a Consul-general in Colombia, with a salary of 800l. a-year, while they allowed other Consuls- general to receive 2,000l. and 2,500l. a-year. If the principle were good in one instance, it must be equally good in the other. He considered the present state of the superannuation list, also, to be most objectionable; and for these, and other reasons, which he would not take up the time of the House in enumerating, he would oppose the Vote.

said, the office of Consul-general in Colombia was to be abolished, and the duty to be performed by a Consul.

said, admitting that to be the fact, his argument still remained good, as there were Consuls-general at Mexico and Buenos Ayres, with the same salary.

said, that it was impossible to conceive a more unfounded charge than that the present system had any part of its origin in him. In answer to that, he would say that he was no party to the clauses which were chiefly objectionable in the new bill. He had pressed on Government the necessity of some alteration, which would deprive the Consuls of the power of charging fees on the shipping interest at any rate they pleased, and establish their salaries on a fixed scale. In order to prove the necessity of a change, he had collected a list of the charges on British shipping levied by the Consuls in the different parts of Europe, and had proved to the House that there were hardly two ports where the charges were the same. In some parts the charges were five times greater, and in others ten times greater, than the charges of the French Consuls. In short, the Consuls might charge any thing they liked; and for these reasons he pressed on the Government the propriety of placing all on the same footing, and also the necessity of furnishing to the master of every vessel, on quitting London, a schedule of the charges which he had to pay on arriving at the port to which he was bound. He allowed also that, by the share he had taken in the abolition of the Levant Company, a charge of 10,000l. had accrued for Consuls in the Levant, which sum had formerly been paid by the Levant Company; but the abolition of that Company was in every way advantageous. What he had suggested to his Majesty's Government was, to put the English Consuls on the same footing as the Consuls of America or France. The French Consuls had no fees whatever; the fees of the American Consuls were very small. He had proposed that the English Consuls should be placed on the same footing as the Consuls of America, who were men of the highest respectability. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if the fees had been abolished. In disproof of this supposition the hon. Member read a list of the fees paid to the English Consuls in South America for the transaction of various business; among which was a fee of half a dollar, for administering an oath, which, he observed, they took the advantage of exacting from resident half-pay officers, who were compelled to take an oath four times a year. What his hon. friend, and what he complained of was, that these individuals had enormous salaries, and fees also. The fees themselves were quite sufficient to pay all the expenses that ought to attend the commercial transactions in question. So far from his being a party to the adoption of this new system, he had most decidedly objected, when the bill was introduced, in 1825, to the clause which allowed salaries to the Consuls. The right hon. Gentleman, in proposing the measure, brought forward a number of ridiculous cases to show the propriety of giving them a fixed salary. Among the rest, he stated that there had been a charge of 4l, or sixteen dollars, for shoeing the Consul's horse. He had stated at the time that he was sure the giving salaries to the Consuls would degenerate into an abuse; and not one year had since passed in which he had not brought the enormous salaries paid to the Consuls before the House, and had exposed a number of expensive and ridiculous charges which had been made by the South American Consuls. He denied, therefore, that he was in the slightest degree liable to the imputation of having caused this wasteful expenditure. The first clause in the bill of 1825 declared that the salaries of the Consuls should be reasonable; the next provided that they should be paid only while they resided in the places to which they were appointed. If the ill health of a Consul compelled him to absent himself from his post for a time, no man would wish to deprive him of his allowance, or of a portion of it. But if he were constantly absent, how could he be entitled to any emolument? He was glad to observe that his Majesty's Government began to be awake to some of these improprieties, and were prepared to correct them, It was astonishing how many abuses lurked in various shapes in the public accounts. He recollected having himself for five years concurred in voting a salary to a dead man; and the fact was at last discovered only by accident. He thought it would be well worth the while of his Majesty's Government to consider whether the business of a Consul would not be best done by a person acquainted with business. He held that commercial men were the best fitted to discharge the duties of a Consul, and the fees were in themselves quite sufficient to induce many most respectable commercial men undertake them. There was a Consul-general appointed at Venice who never resided there. There were Consuls in many places (with salaries of 600l. a year and upwards), where there was no trade. The produce of the fees in other places was enormous. He had looked over a list of Consuls in Colombia, where they received 10,300l.; and the whole of the exports were only 70,000 tons, and the imports 277,000 tons—making a charge on the whole of more than four per cent. Many hon. Members would recollect the long struggle he had had before he had been able to defeat an imposition of a duty of a half per cent on the trade, but it now appeared that in Colombia the fees of the Consuls amounted to four per cent. Mr. Canning said, that that was merely an experiment.—but there had been no subsequent reduction. To show the heavy charges on our shipping interest arising from this source, the hon. Member read a statement of the sums paid at the different ports of Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Italy, and Holland. In some the charge for every 500 tons was 3l. 12s.; in others, 12l. 12s. 34l., 45l., and even 54l. This was a state of things which certainly required reconsideration. The charge for supporting chapels, too, he thought quite unnecessary. Formerly the sum was 18,000l.; this year it was 7,000l.; and he wished to see it entirely dispensed with. The Lisbon merchants assessed themselves. At the Brazils, the merchants assessed themselves. There were many English resident at the different places in which Consuls were established, who would be but too glad to undertake the duties for the fees, without any salary whatever. It was well known that many persons by no means suited to the situation of Consuls were appointed as an exercise of the patronage of Government. In his opinion every Consul-general ought to be got rid of. Instead of applying their whole time to the public service, they confined their duties to a few hours in the day. The hours of business of the Consul-general in Paris were only from twelve to two. Why should there be a Consul-general where there was an Ambassador? Why a double establishment? Why not let the Consul assist the Minister? The present estimate was wholly inconsistent with the professions which his Majesty's Government had made of economy. He, for one, would therefore recommend a very large reduction in it, besides withdrawing a number of Consuls from places where there was no business. He was persuaded that a third of our Consuls in Europe might be advantageously withdrawn. In South America the extravagant allowances made to the Consuls was a matter of general laughter. Those extravagant allowances were injurious. It was a mistake to suppose that high salaries secured efficient services; the reverse was the fact. High salaries caused idleness, and made the individual less fit to do the duty—moderate salaries did not. On all these grounds he would with pleasure vote for the Amendment. He would take the present opportunity of expressing the great gratification which he felt at the result of the debate the other evening on the currency. He hoped that no man would now believe that any change in that respect was possible. He highly approved of the determination of his Majesty's Ministers to sanction no change in the currency. Had they acted differently, they would have been guilty of an Act which would have brought back all the troubles on that subject from which we had so lately emerged. That being the case, however, he called on the House to unite in bringing down the expense of the establishments of the country to an amount consistent with the existing standard of currency. It was weak and absurd to suppose that the country could bear a taxation of sixty-five millions with the present standard of currency, when it could only bear a taxation of fifty-five millions in the former standard of currency. He hoped that the reductions to which, in 1821, the House pledged itself, in its Address to the King, would yet take place; and that Parliament would not go on, day after day, and do nothing to reduce the expenditure.

said, that be was one of those who had thought it advantageous to have Consuls with salaries; but, looking at the abuses which had arisen from the system, he was satisfied that a most fatal error had been committed by the Bill of 1825, and that the sooner the House returned to a more rational and economical system, the better it would discharge its duty. He did not concur with the hon. Baronet in the general charge which he had made against Government for want of economy. Generally speaking, it was not liable to such an imputation; but he must say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to give an answer to what had been so ably argued by the hon. Baronet, more especially to the fact of paying large salaries and allowances to gentlemen who, whatever their talents might be, had no duty to perform, whilst whatever duty there was to perform was done by individuals on the spot, also paid by this country. One thing was clear—that there was very little business to do. The hon. Member had adverted to the case of Mr. Coke. He had an appointment, and received orders to proceed to his appointment. After making several ineffectual attempts, though not saying why they were ineffectual, he returned to this country and remained here a considerable time. This Gentleman still enjoyed the place of Consul. He was one of those who thought the appointment of a Consul-general altogether unnecessary. Where we had regular Ambassadors he thought that Consuls-general might be entirely dispensed with. Vice-consuls were totally unnecessary too where there were Consuls—though he believed there were Vice-consuls who did the duty whilst the Consul did nothing whatever. It was a mistaken notion to suppose that in 1825 the office was done away with—it still remained. He was not completely favourable to giving the office to mercantile men, as those men who had not the appointment were jealous of those who had, thinking that by it they obtained advantages. But he would propose a Merchant-consul, with a fixed and fair table of fees. If such a mode as that were adopted, the country would be relieved of this enormous charge of no less than 130,000l. In the United States of North America there were no less than eight Consuls, besides a Consul-general, enjoying a salary of 800l. When a man went to a cheaper country he ought to be satisfied with a lower amount of salary, 1,600l. was too much where a man could have little or nothing to do. It was equal to the salary of the Chief Justice of America. What propriety was there in raising a Consul to his rank? Was it more advisable to return to the old system, or to reduce the salaries? The reductions could not be carried to a very large extent. He would propose to refer the whole matter to a committee. He hoped that the House would not continue a system which would perpetuate upon us and our posterity a heavy charge for superannuation.

said, that this was one of the subjects which might have been fully and advantageously discussed in the Finance Committee. No person could I have listened to the present discussion, without coming to the conclusion, that the establishment in question was one of enormous expense. Not only was it enormously expensive in itself, but it also inflicted an enormous Superannuation List on the country. Ministers seemed not to know how to get out of the evil. The only way was, to refer the subject to the consideration of a Committee, which would show how to get out of it with a reduction of half the present expenditure. He regretted that the hon. Baronet had not proposed a much larger reduction; but certainly the Amendment should have his cordial support.

observed, that as the arguments in favour of the Amendment had failed to convince him of the propriety of the proposed reduction, he should not vote for it. He had confidence in the general disposition of his Majesty's Government towards economy.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had reproached Members for declining to place confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, when scarcely one week had elapsed since the hon. Gentleman had himself declared that he could not give them that confidence. He alluded to what the hon. Member had stated respecting Ceylon—viz. that five or six years had passed, and Government had done nothing which they had promised to do. To be consistent, the hon. Gentleman ought now to give his vote against Ministers upon the very grounds which he had himself alleged.

could not see the slightest inconsistency in the conduct of the hon. member for Beverley. When the hon. Gentleman said, that he entertained con- fidence in the general disposition of his Majesty's Government towards economy, he by no means relinquished his right to examine any particular part of their conduct. He did not think his Majesty's Government had been well used by the hon. Baronet. It was too much for the hon. Baronet to argue, that his Majesty's Government disregarded public opinion because they disregarded his opinion. What were the facts? The estimates voted last year amounted to 17,526,000l.; the estimates which it was proposed to vote this year amounted only to 16,584,000l. When did any preceding Ministers of their own accord, the circumstances of the country remaining the same, propose a reduction in one year of 1,100,000l.? Having done that in a single year, and having declared their determination, if they continued in administration, to persevere in their course, that afforded in his mind a conclusive answer to the charge against them of constituting a profligate and corrupt Government.

had not heard any body charge his Majesty's Government with being profligate and corrupt. If he had, he should have been the last man in the House to assent to the justice of the accusation. But when the right hon. Baronet got up and declared that Government had spontaneously introduced a system of economy to a certain extent, the circumstances of the country remaining the same as last year, he must deny the accuracy of the position. Were the circumstances of the country the same? Had the right hon. Baronet and the House heard nothing of the distress of the country? Had no petitions been presented from large bodies of the people, complaining that they were destitute of bread, that they were over-taxed, and over-worked; and praying for a reduction of the public expenditure? To be told, therefore, that Government had voluntarily, and of its own accord, come forward, the circumstances of the country remaining the same, was to be told that which was not borne out by the facts. He allowed his Majesty's Ministers some credit for a disposition to economy, although that disposition had probably been stimulated by the prayers and petitions of the people; but it was too much to see them take to themselves the infinite credit which they did on the subject. In his opinion great benefit resulted from the abolition of fees, but he thought the House had great reason to complain of the system upon which Consuls were appointed. They really were found to accept office rather as a matter of patronage and of favour than with "any sincere and earnest desire to perform their duty. What necessity, he would gladly learn, was there for such a payment being made as 11,000l. to each of our Ambassadors—what did they do to compensate the country for so vast an expenditure? For 500l. a year the interests of the country would be better attended to. He would also desire to be informed upon what ground such a payment as 1,200l. a year to the Consul-general at Naples could be justified—a place, the whole trade of which, with the whole world, did not amount to 1,000,000l. annually? Perhaps it was, that the climate was fine, and that the Government found it a convenient place to send any gentleman to whom they wished to oblige. The Consuls in the employment of England were less efficient than those in the employment of any other great commercial country. He begged the House to turn its attention to the case of France—they would there find an excellent example for imitation. They had there a school for the education of Consuls. America was also better served in the Consular department than England. For these reasons, then, he would vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet, being satisfied that the House of Commons could not too soon take the matter into its own hands.

said, the arguments of the hon. Baronet quite convinced him, and he should, therefore, vote for his Amendment. He wished that every vote they gave should go forth to their Constituents; and he hoped the country would support them in that the first blow which they had struck in the fight they had commenced against the Ministers.

wished to explain some expressions of his which appeared to have been mistaken by the right hon. Baronet opposite. He went on to say, "I did not charge his Majesty's Government with being profligate or corrupt. I should be the last man in this House to retract any censure which I might find it my duty to pronounce upon any Administration. What I did say was this—the Ministers of the Crown, in their professions of economy, when those professions were brought to the test of their acts, did not appear to be marked with sincerity. All their reductions affected Subordinate Officers—men powerless, destitute of influence; and they uniformly avoided anything like reduction when they came to deal with men having votes in either House of Parliament, or influencing votes in Parliament. When they approached large emoluments, this spirit of reduction immediately disappeared, and they were found pertinaciously adhering to everything in the nature of patronage that could affect the two Houses of Parliament. That is the amount of what I stated, and my respect for the character of the right hon. Baronet induces me thus to re-state it, and explain it, though without any retraction. In the course he pursues I am far from saying that he is worse than other Ministers—what he does is perfectly natural to all Ministers—he is not a whit more pure than any of his predecessors. I said so before, and I say so still, but that was all I said; and it is the perception of that which makes me depart from the support which I thought it would be in my power to afford the Ministers, and which, at the beginning of the Session, I expressed an intention of giving them." The hon. Baronet then proceeded to reply to some of the arguments that had been urged in the course of the discussion, and concluded by saying that he thought it would be an improvement upon the system, if the remuneration of Consuls were left more to the individual good-will of the merchants.

—By voting against the Motion of the hon. Baronet, I do not pledge myself to the support of the present Consular establishments, for I think that the whole system of our Consular establishments, and salaries ought to be revised. We are, however, placed in a peculiar situation; for if we concede to the opinion of the House of Commons on one occasion, our so yielding is used as a taunt against us at another. This certainly is a novel course, at least, if it be not a just one. Now, the present system relative to Consuls was an experiment of Mr. Canning's, in the year 1825; and the abolition of fees and the substitution of salaries was tried at the recommendation of the House. This experiment has not succeeded, and it is a subject worthy of serious consideration whether we ought not, partially to return to the old system of remuneration, by fees. But, let me ask, am I to be taunted, because the House of Commons threw out a suggestion, to which I yielded; or, is there any thing in such conduct to justify the hon. Baronet in throwing out such a taunt? The House of Commons is as much responsible for the present Consular system as the Government; and therefore not the tribunal that ought to inflict censure. There have been, already, several reductions made, amounting to 5,300l. a year; and, as vacancies occur, a due and proper consideration will be given to every appointment before any vacancy be filled up: but it would not be good policy to withdraw from remote colonies the present Consuls, and put them on the superannuation list at home. There are, at present, under the consideration of my noble friend at the head of the Foreign Department, the appointments at Mexico, Carthagena, Lima, Valparaiso, Buenos Ayres, Conception, Lisbon, Madrid, and several others; and as vacancies occur at these stations, the necessity of filling them up will be considered; and, what is of more importance, also, whether the emoluments of these offices may not undergo some partial alteration—at least, as to the source from which they are to be ultimately drawn.

Sir, notwithstanding what has fallen from the right hon. Secretary, I must say that, in my opinion, at all events, whatever reductions may have taken place, have been effected through the perseverance of this side of the House; and I am also confident that we should have had no reduction this year either, if it were not for the pressing from this side; and many, I know, are of the same opinion. And this also I can say, that ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, there has never been evinced a disposition on the part of any Administration to reduce either salary or pension of its own accord. Ministers may be goaded to do so, I admit, and especially when they see what I apprehend the right hon. Baronet may see to-night, that the probable majority of the House is against him. In these cases he may be obliged, like others similarly situated, to attend rather more than is usual to the wishes of Parliament.

—Surely the hon. Gentleman will not take credit to his friends for the reduction announced in the King's Speech to Parliament.

I do not rise to delay the Committee, but I feel it right to notice an observation made at the other side of the House. The hon. member for Aberdeen, in speaking of the Consul-general at Paris, observed that his office was open only for two hours each day. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that he is misinformed in that respect, as the office is constantly kept open from eleven o'clock in the morning until four, and sometimes five o'clock in the afternoon. I have also to observe, that the Consul-general at Paris, pays the salary of a Vice-consul out of his own pocket. As to the other expenses alluded to to-night, it would ill become me to occupy the time of the Committee, but I thought it right to give this explanation; and I trust that the hon. member for Aberdeen will feel glad of having had this opportunity of being undeceived.

The Committee divided.

For Sir J. Graham's Amendment 98; Against it 121—Majority 23.

said, that if Consular charges were of importance, those of the colonies were much more so, and especially those of New South Wales, for which they were now called on to vote 120,000l., although, if the local revenue were properly managed, it would be sufficient to pay every expense. The House was not aware of the annual amount collected in these colonies. The last account was that of 1825, and from that it appeared that, in 1825, there had been received 68,000l. and the expenditure came to 77,000l. From that period the increase, both in the revenue and expenditure, had gone on until the latter, in 1829, amounted to 138,000l. The revenue in the colony last year had been 94,000l.; and yet the House was asked for 120,000l. in addition, exclusive of the military expenses, which were included in the annual estimates, and which came to 150,000l. more. The colony might be maintained at one-half this expense; and the revenue, if well applied, would cover the whole expenditure within 30,000l. or 40,000l. He had moved, three months ago, for the accounts of the colony, in order to be prepared for this vote, but he could not get them. The progress of extravagance was enormous in every department, and that was not to be wondered at when all was under the supremacy of an individual over whom there was no control, and who had three funds to draw on—namely, the colonial revenue, of which he gave no account; bills drawn on the Treasury; and the Commissariat bills, drawn on account of the military. The Secretary of State was in possession of no accounts, and it was too bad to be called on to vote 270,000l. without knowing how it was to be expended. Under all the circumstances, he would impress upon the right hon. the Colonial Secretary the propriety of a committee up stairs; and one of the grounds was, that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing of what all the money was required for, and how it was expended, as the Governor would send home no accounts. There was gross mismanagement; for, on the arrival of convicts, instead of being hired out to those who were anxious for them, they were sent in gangs to lumber-yards, and other places, and placed at the disposal of a Board of Works in the colony,—a species of establishment likely enough to lead to extravagance, even in England, where there was some control and inspection, and doubly so in a colony like New South Wales, where there was none. Besides, there was no necessity for it, as every species of Government-work could be contracted for with advantage.

observed, that on the discussion relative to the Penitentiary, his anxious attention had been directed to this subject, and that he wished to have an inquiry instituted into all secondary punishments, as well as a comparative examination into the expense attending them, whether referring to the hulks, the Penitenitary, or New South Wales. His wish was, that such an inquiry should now be set on foot, and undertaken by one committee, as the various subjects were inseparably connected. He would ask to have this grant passed, and have the inquiry instituted next Session. He was collecting documents, and wished the whole subject to be minutely examined into, and instead of having any objection to a committee, he wished the Government had the sanction of a committee. He thought, if the intervening period between this and the next Session were employed in preparation, it would be better to have a full inquiry, than an imperfect one at present.

wished to know, what the commission appointed at an early period of the present Session had done, the object of which was very like what he sought for on the present occasion—namely, to reduce the expense of the colonies within their revenues. In this colony, beginning with the Governor, his salary had been increased from 3,100l. to 4,700l. a-year, and his emoluments did not fall short of 6,000l. The expenses were enough to frighten one. Then Mr. M'Clay, who had been sent out as Secretary to the Governor of a paltry colony, received 2,000l. a-year, and, over and above, had a superannuation allowance of 750l. a year for an office he formerly held in England; so this person actually received 2,750l. per annum. And what was the conduct of the Governor? Mr. Hayes and another were in gaol for fifteen months, and it was not in their power to bring the Governor to any account. The House would recollect that he had already protested against having a military jury wherever juries were allowed in any cause between the Governor and a subject. But that was disregarded, and, in consequence, what was the state of the editors of newspapers in the colony who had incurred his displeasure? There were fourteen ex-officio informations against them, and they were tried by military juries. Now what ought to be said to an Attorney-general who would institute prosecutions against individuals, and to a Governor who had the power of naming five officers to serve as jurymen, by his Brigade-major? Formerly there were five officers for all trials; but some of them not being found tractable, the five were chosen weekly; but now it was done through the Brigade-major. There could be no chance of a fair trial; for, instead of going the fair way to meet any charge, down came ex-officio informations, and the editors of "The Australian" and "The Monitor" were now in gaol, and, by the last accounts, three more prosecutions ex-officio had been commenced. It was right and just that there should be an opportunity of inquiring into the whole manner in which the colony was conducted. The right hon. Gentleman said, let us have a committee next Session; he said, let it begin its labours to-morrow, and he would engage to attend to it every day, from eleven o'clock until the House sat. He asked, was it not five years since he had moved for accounts relative to this colony, and how much further had they got since? He had recommended the recall of the first Governor who had refused the accounts; and certainly the right hon. Gentleman opposite had taken a vast deal of trouble in managing the accounts of this colony, such as they were, for the Finance Committee. There was another subject relating to the colonies which deserved investigation; it was that of pensioners. It appeared that there were pensions to the amount of 35,000l. a-year granted out of colonial revenues to individuals residing in England. An item in one account he held in his hand was, "To amount of pensions transmitted to England, 4,500l." He asked the Colonial Secretary where the particulars of this account were to be found, and he said that he did not know where they were. He believed the right hon. Gentleman to be thoroughly sincere, and that he did not know how these things went on; and was not this, he would ask, enough to excite attention and provoke inquiry. He had, moved for accounts of the establishment at New South Wales, and any year subsequent to those of 1825, which he had, would satisfy him; but he could not get them, nor could the Colonial Secretary. Again, he would ask, why should Mr. M'Clay receive 2,000l. a-year as Secretary, 250l. a-year for house-rent, and a pension of 750l., besides large grants of land? If the House would only permit the inquiry, they would see the fatal influence of an abuse of power beyond what they could suppose. The Governor of New South Wales exercised such a power, and the consequence was, that he made grants to every branch of his family, and there was a whole colony of Darlings—brothers, and brothers-in-law; there were also a plenty of gentlemen who held both offices and large grants. He wondered the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies did not make some alteration, although it was, at the same time, but justice to admit, that the right hon. Gentleman had lately refused the office of treasurer to one of the Governor's brothers-in-law. The Auditor-general was a person whom the Governor had brought from another colony, and was his brother-in-law—Captain Dumaresque. However, so it was, the Treasurer, the Auditor-general, and the others, were placed by him in office, that the accounts could be easily made up, as there would be no possibility of detecting either fallacy or imposition. In addition to all that, the press was muzzled.

approved of the appointment of a committee, but he would not be satisfied to refer to that committee the subject of expenditure only of the colony, but also the inquiry how far the secondary punishment of transportation thither acted as a prevention of crime. The system of punishment there was the mere employment of the convicts as agricultural labourers—as well fed and clothed as that class was in England. With respect to the increased expense of the colony, he was not surprised at that, as the population was increasing, and so also were the public establishments necessary for the government and superintendence of the colony. He maintained that the offices in the colonies ought to be well filled, and nothing could so well secure proper appointments as the Gazetting those appointed in England before they went out. It would be also right to give the utmost publicity to all transactions in the colonies.

said, that the charges made by the hon. member for Aberdeen were so general, that it was not easy to answer them. He complained that there was no returns to his motions. The hon. Member called for papers for 1829; but these papers could not be produced, because they had not yet arrived from the colony. In reply to the hon. Member's call for other returns, he (Sir George Murray) told him that there was great labour and much time to be employed in getting them, as some of them were connected with other departments. With respect to the pensions, those which were payable by the agent for the colony did not exceed 1,400l. The right hon. Gentleman then read the names of Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Thompson, and other widows, to whom these pensions, constituting that sum, were payable; and the pension of 50l. a year to one of them was given at the instance of the hon. Member himself. There was 400l. paid as a pension to the widow of Governor Macquarrie—that now ceased, and, therefore, the pensions now paid by the agent were altogether only 1,011l. The right hon. Gentleman, in justification of the expense of the colony, enumerated the different public establishments necessary to be kept up for so large a population, amounting in all to 57,611, of whom 36,598 were convicts, who were scattered over a wide country. The expense necessarily increased with the addition, from time to time, of a number of convicts. As to the imputation of jobbing cast upon the Governor, that he denied. There were only three gentlemen in the colony connected with the Governor. Two of them were his brothers-in-law, one of whom was private secretary to the Governor; the other had no office. He would be glad of an inquiry into the expenditure as proposed. Several reductions had been made, and more were under his consideration. It ought to be recollected that salaries were given to the persons on the ecclesiastical establishment—not only to Protestants, but to Catholics also. He admitted that the system of sending out convicts was an expensive mode of punishment, but it was in many points advantageous.

observed, that no answer was made to his hon. friend's complaints of the ex-officio informations. No less than eleven of them were issued against the conductors of newspapers in that colony. One of them was for a paragraph which was considered a libel, but which was no more than a simple complaint of the manner in which the writer was treated by the Governor and his military jury; yet he was found guilty by that jury of the second libel, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. Now, in a place where there was no society to operate as a control over those in power, and where the people had no protection but that of the Press, it was rather hard to try a man for a paragraph like the one to which he referred—and that by a military jury—and to sentence him to twelve months imprisonment.

would be glad if the hon. and learned Member would read the observations of the Judges of the court, and of the party's own Counsel, at the trial of the person alluded to. He had as great respect as any one for the liberty of the Press; but, from the observations made by the Court and Counsel, he inferred that the libel was of an aggravated character, and that the liberty of the Press was there very much abused.

said, that there was nothing libellous in the paragraph; and, if the Counsel cringed to the court and government, he could only say, that he would not be defended by such Counsel.

asked why was not there an appointment of proper juries, and not of military men?

said, he was not responsible for that: the jury-system of New South Wales was arranged by an Act of Parliament.

said, that the proposed investigation ought to be separate—into the nature of the punishment, and into the expenditure.

Vote agreed to.

A vote of 9,000l. to pay, for 1830, the Fees due to the Clerks and Officers of the House upon the passing of Turnpike-road Bills was agreed to.

wished to know, if thirteen commissioners were appointed, why the estimates were only for ten. He had looked into the first report, and found it to contain a good deal of ordinary matter. The subject, however, was one which he did not profess to know much about.

said, that in the first instance only ten commissioners had been appointed, but three were subsequently added.

was opposed to the Vote altogether, and one main ground of his opposition was, that the best persons were withheld. He should like to know why it was, that the names of Mr. Butler and Mr. Humphreys were left out?

said, that the learned persons selected were as eminent as any in the whole range of the profession. As to Mr. Humphreys, the reason why he was excluded was because he had previously pledged himself to certain strong opinions in a work which he had published on an important branch of the inquiry.

considered that Mr. Humphreys had written the best book that could be produced on the subject, and that fact alone ought rather to qualify than disqualify him for the appointment.

had so high an opinion of the talents of Mr. Humphreys, that he very much wished to see him appointed sole commissioner. He thought that instead of there being so many individuals appointed, who had their own professional avocations to attend to, there ought to be one learned and experienced person selected for the duty—a person who, like Mr. Humphreys, would have no practical interest in the law. To such a man a salary might be continued for life with great public advantage.

was ready to admit, to the fullest extent, the merits and talents of Mr. Humphreys, knowing them to be of the very first order; and he at the same time much regretted that the name of that gentleman was not included in the commission; but still these considerations could not blind him to the extreme merit of the commission, constituted as it was. The gentlemen composing it were distinguished for great knowledge, perseverance, and ability; and in proof of the strict attention they paid to the duties that devolved upon them, it was only necessary for him to state a fact which had come within his own knowledge; namely, that they had sat on one particular day for eleven hours successively, for purposes connected with the inquiry. The first report related to the law of Real Property, and was in his opinion, an invaluable production. The subject itself was one, compared with which all other matters relative to the law sunk into comparative insignificance. The second report was still under consideration, and referred to the Registration of Deeds—a subject also of great public interest, not only in Yorkshire and other parts of England, where there was a system of registration, though imperfect, but also in those parts of England, where there was none. The first report was the one adverted to by his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, who had proved that, which it was quite unnecessary for him to prove; namely, that he knew nothing whatever about it. He (Mr. Brougham) contended that the commissioners had gone to work with the firm determination of effecting real practical reforms, and hitherto they had most ably and honourably acquitted themselves. With respect to the report of the Commissioners of Common Law, all he could say was, that never yet had public money been better bestowed than were the few thousand pounds which this production cost. A more learned, sound, or useful report, upon an arduous and complicated subject, he had never yet seen. The expense of the commissions altogether was 50,000l., a sum not exclusively expended on law inquiry, for the report included matters of another description. One notable Scotch Canal commission had swallowed up more money than all the other commissions put together, from the year 1807 down to a very recent period, and, had it not been for the fortunate discovery of steam navigation, the chances were, that the whole of the money would have gone to the bottom of the canal. The commission now before the House, be it always borne in mind, cost the country only the one hundred and seventieth part of the expenses of the last year of the last war; and he earnestly wished that all public money were applied to so good a purpose as that for which the present Vote was brought forward. He must, however, observe, that there ought to be a certain fixed period within which the labours of all commissions ought to terminate, for there was in such bodies a principle tending to perpetuate their own existence. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and, indeed, he had himself particular reason to know the fact that the gentlemen who were named upon the commission had accepted the office very unwillingly, and would have been very glad to have excused themselves. What gain could it be to his friend Mr. Campbell, for instance, a gentleman at the head of his profession, to receive what to others might perhaps be a desirable salary, but which to him was nothing—for a duty which took up so much of his time and attention. He knew that Mr. Campbell would have preferred that the duty had been an honorary one, but, as some gentlemen not equal to him in eminence— conveyancers and others, were placed upon the commission, to whom it was necessary to give some compensation for the sacrifice of their business, of course it was impossible to make a distinction, or for one gentleman to say that he was above receiving what was given to others. He thought that some limit ought to be put to the duration of the commission; and if no other gentleman would make a motion to effect that, he should feel it his duty to do so; and he wished that this should be taken as a notice, that he should take some step for bringing the commission to a close at some definite time. He approved highly of all that had been done, and looked confidently forward to the great and important improvements in the law which must result from the labours of the commission.

hoped that no Gentleman in that House, whether a possessor of freehold property or not, would suffer his judgment to be influenced by the important consideration, whether every man of landed property should be obliged to register publicly every deed or instrument, of whatever kind, affecting his property, but would form his opinion as to the entire effects of the report. He had the highest respect for the learning and talent of the gentlemen who composed the commission, and he was glad to pronounce an eulogy upon them; but, at the same time, he begged leave to say, that he would not be bound by their decision, but would reserve his own judgment, whether or not he should adopt their report. He had an opportunity of knowing that many of the Judges did not concur in some of the propositions relating to the common law; and as to the suggestions of the real property commission, there were many of them to which he should feel bound to give an earnest opposition [Question]. He should be glad to ask the hon. Gentleman who called "Question," whether he was the owner of freehold property? and if he were, he would tell him that he would be obliged to make a public registry of every single instrument or act relating to his estate.

said, that in Ireland the system of registry had been in practice for a century, and it worked extremely well. It prevented a number of frauds. The only defect in the system of registration was, that it did not go far enough. He was sure that, if introduced into England, it would increase the value of real property by many years' purchase.

bore testimony to the efficacy of registration in Yorkshire, in preventing frauds.

said, that the Yorkshire registry was condemned as an ineffectual mode of attaining the proposed object.

said that, if the system of registry was not perfect, it was because it did not go far enough; and it was quite a logical argument to say that, if even a bad system had produced great good, much more might be expected from an improved one.

Sir C. Wetherell rose again, but

said, that the public business could not go on if Gentlemen indulged in constant repetition of irrelevant matter, or, as his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen would say, rigmarole.

Resolution agreed to.

complained of the state of ignorance in which the House was left respecting the colonies, while there were ample means of laying before the House full information as to their expenditure and revenue. The estimates for those dependencies ought to be examined with a view to their principle, rather than by unnecessarily scrutinising each particular vote. With respect to the colonies of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and New Brunswick, it deserved serious consideration whether they ought not to take upon themselves their own expenditure. The hon. member for Aberdeen frequently said that the colonies ought to pay their own military expenses; but against that principle he (Mr. W. Horton) should always protest. That branch of their expenditure must depend upon a thousand circumstances, for which the particular colony was not individually responsible; and it would be as unjust to fasten that burthen upon it, as to tax a county for the troops which were quartered in it. With respect to the question whether the colonies ought to take upon themselves to support the expenses of their civil government, that rested upon a different footing, and he would trouble the House by reading a circular letter addressed by Lord Bathurst to the governors of the colonies on this point. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following letter:—

"Downing Street, Oct. 8th, 1825.

"Sir;—You are aware that in all discussions which of late years have taken place in Parliament on the subject of the Colonial Estimates, it has been objected, that the North American colonies ought to take upon themselves those permanent and necessary expenses of their civil government which have hitherto been charged upon the revenues of this country. I have always felt unwilling to enter upon the subject, until the period should arrive when, from the growing prosperity of those colonies, and from the condition which they had attained with respect to their population and resources, I could press it with the conviction, that the proposition was not only one which ought to be entertained by the Legislature, but one which would be met by the most anxious disposition to comply with the wishes of Government. I also deferred pressing this point, till Parliament had actually removed those restrictions to which the commerce of the colonies had hitherto been subject; because, though it might not have appeared unreasonable to have made the extension of a policy so liberal towards the colonists in some measure dependent upon their assuming upon a just footing the charges of their own government; yet I felt it a more pleasing; course, and one which I trusted would be found not less effectual, to rely rather upon the disposition of his Majesty's subjects in the colonies to evince a just sense of these advantages after they should have been conferred upon them, than to have attempted to induce them to a compliance with the proposition by any promise of consequent concession and advantage. By the measures which Parliament has adopted, the restrictions I have referred to are removed, and the colonies now enjoy, under the protection of his Majesty, the same freedom of trade with the Parent State and foreign countries, as if they constituted in fact integral parts of the United Kingdom. Such a state of things, it is confidently hoped, cannot fail to produce an increase of prosperity, that will either enable the colonists to bear the charge of the civil government, without the necessity for imposing additional taxes, or will make the increased taxes which it may be necessary for a time to provide, less burthensome than those which they are obliged now to sustain. I have had frequent occasion to regret the inconvenient consequences which have arisen in some of his Majesty's colonies, from the practice of providing by an annual vote for those charges for civil government which are in their nature permanent, and which, therefore, ought not, consistently with, those principles of the Constitution common both to the United Kingdoms, and to the colonies, to be classed with those contingencies of the public service which, being necessarily fluctuating, may be fitly provided for as the occasion appears to demand. In point of fact, the necessity of an annual vote for the maintenance of a fixed and permanent establishment is only calculated to embarrass the public service, and to disturb the harmony which ought to exist among the different branches of the Legislature—it even tends to impair that confidence between the government and the inhabitants of a colony, which is equally necessary to the support of the former, and to the happiness and prosperity of the latter, In the practical execution of this proposition, it cannot fail to be satisfactory to the Legislature to observe, that it is not intended that the provincial revenue should be charged to an excess beyond the long established and ordinary charge, until a further increase should by them be deemed expedient. The charges of which the present estimate consists, being all strictly of a permanent description, I should propose, that the Act which will be necessary to make provision for the assumption by the colony, should continue in operation for the space of ten years. The cordial adoption of this proposition on the part of the Legislature cannot fail to draw still closer the ties which so happily subsist between the mother country and her dependencies, and to induce a favourable disposition on her part to apply her capital for colonial purposes. And when it is considered how heavy an expenditure is necessarily incurred by Great Britain in the military defences of her colonies, it would seem unreasonable, under present circumstances, to question the readiness of the latter to provide in a proper manner for the expenses of their civil government. You will explain in the fullest manner to the Legislature in the course of the next session, the expectations of his Majesty's Government upon this subject, and you will at the same time inform them, that whatever funds may be raised or received within the province, such fund not being under the control of the Legislature, will be appropriated to the benefit of the province, at the discretion and under the sanction of his Majesty's Government."

The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to point out the different circumstances in which some of the colonies were placed from others—that some had legislative assemblies, and others were wholly dependent on the Orders in Council sent out from this country. The proposition in the letter appeared perfectly equitable and reasonable, and he thought it justified the House in calling for the reasons why any of the British North American colonies, and particularly Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island, did not take upon themselves the expense of their own Government. He had often regretted the necessity of procuring an annual vote of the Parliament, for establishments in their nature permanent, and he trusted that that necessity would soon be at an end. He thought that letter one of the utmost importance, and was most anxious that its effect should, by the means by which the public became acquainted with the proceedings of that House, reach the colonists, who were so much interested in the principles it developed. He recommended that the colonies should, as much as possible, be allowed to enjoy constitutions like that of this country. Many persons were under the impression that this was so, when they saw a legislative assembly and executive; but there was no parallel between their government and ours, as there was a veto on all their acts. If he could venture to advise, it would be, that the colonies should be made to govern themselves; that in the ceded colonies, where there was only an executive government, there should be a council, with power to remonstrate against the acts of the Governor where they differed, which would be a salutary check. He would also, where colonies governed themselves, have a Chancellor of the Exchequer for the taxes which were proposed and raised in each, and an account of all laid annually before Parliament, for the parties there could not be supposed to be as well aware of the operation of any tax on industry and commerce as we were in this country. We should also have proper persons, perfectly qualified to fill colonial situations, and suitably paid; but, above all, he would recommend that the colonies should govern themselves in their internal economy. This principle if acted upon, would prevent those disputes which we had seen in Lower Canada. The right hon. Gentleman concluded with hoping that the Colonial Department would receive that simplification which had been introduced into the other parts of our financial system.

said, it was his intention, as soon as he conveniently could, to lay before the House a full account of all the items of colonial expenditure. As to the military defence of the several colonies, he thought it would be too much to expect the colony should maintain its military defensive force. The great difficulty in all these colonies was, that the constitutional principles of the mother country were not found so well to amalgamate with the colonial forms of government. The aristocratical principle, in particular, was but imperfectly introduced throughout the whole of our colonies.

hoped that the speech of his right hon. friend, on this occasion, would not be suffered to pass without appearing in a printed shape before the public. Its matter was excellent, its acquaintance with the subject profound, and evidently derived from official sources.

contended that the aristocratical principle never had been intended to be ingrafted on the ancient constitution of Canada. All attempts to introduce it there, he pledged himself to the right hon. Gentleman, would totally fail. It was contrary to the genius of their constitution, and foreign to the habits of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman imagined the bill he had promised to introduce would prove a bill of conciliation, he was much mistaken. The Canadians would resist every effort of that House to tax them—it would take all the exertion of its high privilege and power to force the meditated measure on the reluctant people of that country.

explained, that he did not wish to introduce an aristocracy into Canada.

said, his right hon. friend found an aristocratic constitution in Canada—he did not introduce it; Mr. Pitt introduced that government into Canada.

thought that there was not too much of the democratic principle [in Canada and the other colonies, and that it was folly to attempt to introduce an aristocracy into Canada.

recommended Sir George Murray to read the account of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly in Canada, in order to see what was the state of feeling in that country. He recommended the Government to withdraw its officers, and cease to meddle with the colonies, and they would take care of themselves.

said, that the House was voting 265,000l. for the Colonial service without hearing for what it was intended. The House should pause before it consented to the vote, and if the colonial expenditure were remitted to a committee, he was sure that a great saving would be made.

Vote agreed to.

The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday next.