NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE House of Commons was busied on Monday with Army Esti- mates and the Bombay .Judicature; on Tuesday, with the State of the
Poor, the Administration of Justice, and the Union of Military and Civil Offices ; on Wednesday, with Portugal ; on Thursday, with the question of Poor-Laws for Ireland ; and on Friday with the late ap- pointment to the Treasurership of the Navy. Ministers have been sadly harassed during the week's campaign. On the Portuguese question, which Lord PALMERSTON'S zeal for the public service brought forward on Wednesday, the Ministers' day of rest, he and Mr. HUSKISSON were ill-bred enough to array against their former colleagues sundry" sanctions' and "guarantees," which it might be convenient for these colleagues to forget ; and Mr. PEEL,
equally unpolite, reminded his ancient allies of their full concurrence in all the measures which they called on Parliament to condemn. The emoluments of Ministers was the next point of attack. The military men among them made but a sorry appearance in defence of their pay ;' while the civilians have had a hint that their salaries must soon come under consideration. Lord ALTHORP has called for a reduc- tion of taxes, under a threat of being troublesome ; and Sir JAMES GRAHAM has made sad havoc among the excuses that were mustered in support of the appointment to the Navy sinecure. During the pauses of this war upon Ministers, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL has launched a little project on the puddle over which his trident extends. Mr. WILMOT HORTON has delivered his annual lecture on the means of ridding us of our surplus population. And the Irish landlords have vindicated their prescriptive right to call that surplus population into existence.
1. PORTUGAL. On Wednesday, Lord PALMERSTON got up a House, and made a long speech in moving for the papers connected with our negotiations and diplomatic relations with Portugal. He contended that England had virtually guaranteed the Portuguese constitution ; that Miguel had broken all his engagements ; that the honour of England was in consequence compromised, that the speeches from the Throne were contradictory on the subject of Portuguese affairs ; and that the county had a right to expect ample satisfaction from Ministers on all these points.
He did not mean to call on the House to express any opinion; he only wished to give publicity to the facts; and his own sentiments. He was satis- fied that at present there was no intention of recognizing Don Miguel on the part of the Government. Events were happening in Brazil—events had hap- pened—events were likely to take place at Terceira, which would make the Go. vernment pause before it recognized Don Miguel. There was a greater proba- bility, he believed, of the Government recognizing the Regency established at Terceira in the name of the daughter of Don Pedro, whose rights we bad acknowledged. * * * It was impossible to deny that the system at'present ' pursued might lead to results fatal to the general tranquillity. Changes had taken place in the Councils of Sovereigns—other changes might take place— popular feeling might force some Governments to interfere for the protection of Portugal, and Britain must then give up her connexion with that country. There would then be no alternative but to abandon Don Miguel, or make war in his support. * C * A great alteration had taken place in the position of England. In 1826, a Sovereign in alliance with us gave his subjects free in- stitutions, and this was attributed to the advice of England. In 1829, another Sovereign in alliance with us called to his councils an Administration that
was considered to be hostile to the liberties of his people, and all Eui ope as- cribed that nomination to the influence of England. In 1826, in the freedom that was extending itself over the Continent of Europe, we fancied we could trace the secret workings of the benevolent hand of England. In 1829, a cloud had overspread France, which made all Europe apprehensive, and this was
attributed to England. By our conduct, since 1826, we had lost our influence in Portugal, and had thrown her into the arms of Spain ; we had tarnished the character of England, and the only price we had obtained for so many sacrifices, was to see the Constitution of Portugal destroyed. (Cheers.)
Mr. HERRIES contended that the principle of the Government had been that of non-interference throughout the negotiations. Most of the acts now challenged were begun under the Administration of which the challenger was a member. Lord JonN RUSSELL contended that Mr. Canning had guaranteed the Portuguese constitution.
He had declared distinctly in one of his despatches to the Portuguese Re- gency, recommending them to put in operation that Constitution, "that any other course than the adoption of the Constitution would be full of danger,not only to the safety of the Crown of Portugal, but the Monarchy of Brazil." Now, what better recognition of the Constitution could be required ? What stronger reason could be demanded for its adoption by the people of Por- tugal ? That country was the weaker power, looking to England for defence and assistance; and although the Constitution was said not to be given by England, there is no doubt that the people of Portugal accepted it at there- commendation of England, under the opinion that England would assist them to maintain it ; and it was under that Impression that the Duke de Cadoval was sent to Brazil to return Don Pedro thanks for the boon he had conferred on the people. Could it be said, after this, that the British Government were not protectors of the Constitution ?
Mr. CALCRAFT denied that Government had ever, directly or in- directly, guaranteed the Constitution. Lord MORPETH observed that England had lost one party in Por- tugal which had always been attached to her, without gaining the affections of any other.
It had been asked, what were the Government to do ? But he would tell them what they ought not to have done. They should not have permitted the correspondence of Lord Beresford. (Hear.) They ought not to have acknowledged with breathless haste the blockade of Oporto, while disallowing the blockade of Prevesa. They ought not, by allowing the British army to remain in Portugal, have hastened the downfal of the Constitution.
Mr. E. DAVENPORT took the same side.
England assisted in establishing a despotism in Portugal, not only from having enshrined in her foreign office the spirit of Metternich, and by the withdrawal of the British troops just at the time when they might have done some good, and compensated for the evil they had been the means of effect- ing, but also by the unconditional surrender to Don Miguel of those for- tresses which were the keys of the Tagus. Another error was, promoting the author of the correspondence with Portugal, instead of dismissing him en- tirely from office.
Colonel BE RESFORD dewed that Government had been compro- mised by the correspondence of his noble relation. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT declared, that the country, though greatly distressed at present, was still strong enough to maintain its honour.
If an English minister should get up in the. House of Commons and say, that this country was not in a state to go to war for the defence of its ho- nour and character, then Sir Francis would say that some heads should be brought to the block. (Cheers.) England's honour was deeply concerned in this question ; and there was no man in that House who did not know the sensation produced in the civilized world by England's subscribing to this policy of her government. Mr. Canning would have taken advantage of the feelings of the age in which he lived—(Cheers); and the House was now to consider whether it was not bound to act by the system of policy which he had chalked out to it. If the contrary opinion prevailed—if the Government chose to assume a lower tone, let them accompany it by reduced establish- ments and a lower expenditure. (Cheers.) If they chose to doff the lion's hide, and hang the calf's skin on their recreant limbs, let them not keep up such a parade of war—an army of immense extent, and apparently prepared to act at a moment's notice for the injured honour of the country. Minis-. ters were encumbered with all the instruments of war, whilst the heart was gone; and he was sorry to say the head was gone which could direct them. (Cheers.) Let Ministers at least be consistent, and with their succumbing to every insult and injury with their terrors of war, let them give up their army of soldiers and their army of diplomatists.
Mr. PEEL lamented that his private feelings clashed with his public duty.
If he could refer to all the papers, they would furnish a most triumphant answer ; they would afford a full explanation of the whole case ; and they would show why Lord Palmerston had selected some transactions for ani- madversion and why he had prudently abstained from referring to others. Sir Francis Burdett's speech proceeded on the assumption that some one on the Ministerial side of the House had said that the country was unable to sustain the charges of a war. But what gentleman upon the Ministerial Benches had ever said that the country ought to submit to dishonour, or to put up with degradation, or abandon its interests, from an apprehension of war, or from a consciousness that she was not in a condition to bear its ex- penses? Still, only those wars should be undertaken which were necessary for the maintenance of national honour. Lord Palmerston had not actually called on the country to go to war—he had merely called on Government to do something different from what it had done : but he had notstated what that something was. He had likewise said, we basely slunk from the engage- ments into which we entered, and we have legal claims on Don Miguel which, we have failed to enforce. Now, if we had basely slunk from our engage- ments, his Majesty's present advisers were not the only persons who ought to bear the disgrace of such misconduct,—if we had failed to enforce our, legal claims on Don Miguel, the noble lord and his friends were equally im- plicated in such failure ; for the period when the execution of such engage- ments, if such engagements there were, could have been most effectually compelled, was when his noble friend himself held office under the Crown, and at that time he had never heard from his noble friend any of those re- monstrances which he had made so vehemently that night. (Immense cheer- ing.) Much stress had been laid on the appearance of the British troops in Portugal when Don Miguel first landed at Lisbon, and afterwards when he commenced his violation qf the rights of his brother, or at any rate of his brother's daughter. On that point he agreed, that if we were right to go t% war with Portugal to support the Constitution, or to control Don Miguel, the time for going to war, or for using those menaces which if disregarded left no alternative but war, was when Lisbon was occupied by our forces. Could there be any question upon that point ? The period during which we had four or five thousand efficient troops in Portugal, was the period when it would have been most expedient for us to interfere ; but when we omitted that opportunity, and directed our troops to withdraw entirely from Por- tugal. we abandoned all right of interference for the future. The resolutions of Government were formed after several appearances of an intention, on the part of Don Miguel,-to assume the royal authority, and to place himself upon the throne. The decree for convening the Cortes at last came out, having the royal signature, instead of the signature of the Iiing's Lieutenant, at. tached to it. The question, whether it should interfere or not, then came regularly before the British Government ; and yet, though such was the ques- tion brought before it, the order that every British soldier in Portugal should be withdrawn was repeated, and U he was not mistaken, the letter which contained that order bore the signature of William Huskisson. flminense cheering.)
On the ground that there was nothing which called upon this country in vindication outs honour to go to war, or to pursue any other course than that which had been pursued,—on the ground that the interests of the coun- try, apart from considerations of honour, were opposed to war,—he would resist the motion, the object of which was to express an opinion in favour of another line of policy. He wished on his own account personally, and as connected with the Administration, that the papers moved for could be pro- duced ; but in the present state of our relations with Portugal, he was bound to state his opinion, that it would not be for the interest of England—it would not be for the interest of Portugal—it would not be for the interest of that party with whom the sympathies of his noble friend were so justly and so honourably engaged.
Mr. HUSKISSON contended that Britain had guaranteed the Por- tuguese Constitution. it was not denied that the Constitution had an advocate in the negotia- tions at Vienna. Was that advocate Prince Metternich or Sir Henry Wel- lesley? When Don Miguel violated his engagements, the British Govern- ment had remonstrated, and the House ought to be put in possession of the remonstrances. They ought to be apprised of the instructions sent to Sir Frederick Lamb. If that were done, they would be enabled to see with what spirit and feeling the British Government acted with reference to Don Miguel. Let the instructions on which these remonstrances were founded be produced, and he would prove to the House, that even then the maintenance of the Portuguese Constitution was the great object of the British Government. He admitted that the despatch which occasioned the troops to be sent back did bear his name. It was signed before Government was informed that Don Miguel had assumed the title and authority of King : the information relative to Don Miguel's conduct had absolutely arrived in England after he was out of office.
He concluded by regretting that Britain should have thrown her influence into the usurper's scale, as the Duke of Wellington's de- clarations proved it had done. Lord SANDON expressed his distrust of our foreign policy. Lord PALMERSTON denied that he had ever when in office sanc- tioned the measures of which he now disapproved. For the motion, 73; against it, 150.
2. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring in a Bill "for the more effectual administration of justice in England and in the principality of Wales.- His proposition was twofold,—the first branch of it regarded enactments that might be necessary for assimilating the administration of justice under the Court of Great Session at Chester and in the Principality, to the administration in England; the second, some alterations in the English Courts.
The administration of Common Law throughout England and Wales was confided to twenty Judges—twelve in England—eight in Wales. He proposed to reduce the number from twenty to fifteen. In England the Judges formed three Courts ; but as kr-held business had increased amazingly, he proposed to add one Judge to each Court ; but in rotation he intended that one of the Ave judges should sit in (,to.rs during term, so as still to leave the number usually sitting, three, with the Chief Judge. He proposed also to alter the termseand the periods of sitting of the Coutts. It was his object to render more effective the other Courts of Common Law, by relieving the Court of King's Bench from the tremendous weight of business by which it was op- pressed. Amongst the alterations which he then intended to introduce were, that in future Michaelmas Term should begin on the 2c1 of November, and end on the 24th; that then for one month the Chief Justice should sit at Nisi Prius ; that from Christmas till the 8th of January there should be a per- fect vacation, during which it would be impossible for the Chief Justice to sit. Other changes in the Terms and Circuits would, he thought, be advisable. So far, he observed, there was no change to be rnade in the law or the pro- cedure; but he now came to a part of he subject wherein it was proposed: to make a change in the law. By a recent enactment, no man could be ar-t rested under mesne process for less than 201.; he intended to raise the sum: from 20/. to 1001., unless where application was made to one of the Judges,i on affidavit, stating special grounds, and a special order made thereon by the.
Judge. •
He should now return to the subject of the Welsh Judicature. He in- tended to submit to the House a Bill for abolishing altogether the Court of Great Session in Chester and throughout Wales generally, and to have the Jaw administered in the Principality by the same machinery, according to the Same forms, and by the same judges, as throughout England. He did not intend to fix the Welsh Circuits by any law ; for if they were fixed by law, it would require a law to alter them. The Privy Council he conceived to be the most competent authority for deciding a question of.that nature.
Sir James observed, that nothing could more strongly attest the excellence of English Jurisprudence than the circumstance that our fifteen Judges tried more causes and decided concerninc,b greater ater
6
amount of property than all the Judges of France—upwards of 800 in number. French law, too, was dearer and more prolix than ours. The institution of trial by Jury gave us a great advantage over them. Mr. O'CoNNELL expressed his disappointment at the Attorney- General's proposition : it did not go to carry amendment into the Jaw, or to make it more accessible to the people.
All the advantages proposed consisted in promoting the convenience of the Judges and of the London Bar, at least that part of it which was in great practice. The measures were not of any public utility. At present the Courts of Wales were more useful than those proposed. There were to be three new Judges, and the four that were already slumbering in the Court of Exchequer were to have one added to them, to assist them in doing no- thing. (Laughter.) As to the procedure, it was an improvement, he, ad- mitted, that no man was to be arrested for less than 1001.; but why was any man to be arrested without the authority of a Judge ? He considered the system of special pleading only calculated to increase the expense, and to make la3y full of fiction and trouble. The parties were kept from coming into the presence of the Judge ; and when they came there, it was found that ' the cause Might havi been settled by arbitration at first as it very often was sit last. -The Attorne4-Genera1 said he was not a friend to violent changes, and yet he annihilated, at once all the local courts of Wales. At present the people of that country would obtain. 4Ustice at their own doors, and at all
times, and at a small expense. If the alterations should be made, they would have to go to England for justice.
He did not think because justice was dear in France, it ought to be dear in England. There, however, it must e remembered, the Courts were open every day, and the provincial Courts were within every man's reach. The Judges in France administered justice to thirty millions of people, while the inhabitants of England did not exceed twelve millions. The Attorney-Gene- ral had forgotten, in his account of the expense of English Courts, the Bank. 'runt Courts, with their seventy Commissioners ; the expense of our Courts of Session, and the expense of those compensations which were to be given by Mr. Peel's Bill. If all these things were included, it would be found, he believed, that the expense of justice was greater in England than in France. It was our business to make justice cheap ; and to do this, he would disband half our army, and cut off our colonies. To provide justice was the business. of all Governments. The proposed arrangeinents would not make justice cheapiand therefore he disapproved of them. Sir "JOHN OWEN protested against the Bill. MT. WILBRAHAM and Mr. W. WYNN approved of it. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL questioned the expediency of bringing justice to every man's door. He granted that it sounded well—that it seemed a very fine thing in theory ; but he denied its merit in practice. If they wished, instead of impartial judges, to have a set of magistrates whose feelings and whose passions were completely identified with local interests, and who would mix themselves up with every man's domestic affairs, then indeed it might be desirable to have ljustice at every door. One of the greatest advantages to arise, in his opinion, from the change now proposed in the Welsh Judicature, was that Wales was to be freed from this very kind of justice. The proposed alterations, t would Tut an end to the union of the functions of judge and barrister, which had long obtained in Wales. Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that he had not required the justice at every man's door to be administered by those who lived close to that door, or who were affected by the prejudices of the neighbourhood. Mr. J. JONES deprecated the proposed alterations of the Welch judicial system. Sir C. COLE supported the bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, laud2d the present system.
He did not think any man could become a sound lawyer without a know- ledge of special pleading ; and no system of law could be devised by man so cheap, so prompt, and on the whole so well calculated for the administration of justice, as that which we now possess. He knew there were many theo- rists who differed from him, and who were ready to maintain that the trial by jury, even in civil cases, might advantageously be dispensed with.
Mr. HUME took up this last remark sharply, as a sneer against Mr. Bentham and his followers.
Instead of sarcastically reviling such a man as Mr. Bentham, he thought it would be well for the Attorney-General if he would cultivate his principles, and labour to attain the same exalted character in the estimation of the civi- lized world.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL disavowed having made any disrespectful allusion to Mr. Bentham or his writings.
He entertained a high respect for Mr. Bentham, whom he had not the ho- nour to know personally, although he was acquainted with those who were on intimate terms with that gentleman. It did not follow, however, that the respect which he felt for the writer was to extend to an adoption of his opinions.
LeaVe.was given to bring in the Bill.
-
1 2. STATE OF THE POOR. Mr. WILMOT HORTON made his pro- ised motion on Tuesday, for a Committee of the whole House to inquire into the distresses of the poorer classes. Should his motion be agreed to, he meant to submit to the Rouse twelve propositions on, the subject ; which he read. He divided the poor intofour classes,— the labouring poor, the helpless poor, the unemployed poor who were willing to labour, and beggars. He deprecated strongly the practice of paying wages out of the poor-rates. Instead of employing them in their separate parishes, he recommended that parishes in conjunc- tion should be empowered to:employ the poor in concentrated labour.
It appeared to him, that, in many instances, labour, which afforded no re- ! turn when employed in separate parishes, would be productive if the labour of several parishes were concentrated. Another suggestion would be, to frame some regulations for restricting the erection of cottages in parishes where it was shown that a great redundancy of labour existed. He was also decidedly of opinion that to give the able-bodied poor, the natural labourers. of the country, a small quantity of ground for their own cultivation, would be attended with highly beneficial consequences.
. But above all, he recommended emigration. He approved of the poor-laws, judiciously administered ; and he did not see why Ireland should not have the same poor-laws as England—though he should be sorry to see them inflicted unless she possessed the means of getting rid of her redundant population. A depreciation of the currency had been recommended as a cure for the present distress ;—but such a \ measure had always been and must be fraught with mischief to the :labourer. Neither were they to look to the repeal of taxes for relief. It was impossible that any remission of taxes could materially afiect the situation of the paupers. Those who had to dispens ^harity might certainly
f by a remission of taxes have their means of doing increased ; but those who were to be maintained out of that charity—in •ther words, the redun- dant labouring population—must be benefited in a ry small degree by the remission of taxation, since it would not increase ..he amount of employ- rnent. He alluded especially to this part of the,subject, because it had been - said that the remission of the malt and beer tax would do the pauper popula-
r. ORTMAN seconded the motion. He would divide the lower orders in this country into two classes,—the poor, and paupers. North of Warwick, or perhaps north of the Thames, the common people might be described as poor ; south of Warwick, or south of the 'Thames, they might be described as paupers. He recommended emigration ; and he thought that to give the poor small pieces of ground, would be attended with advantage. Mr. J. SMITH approved of these suggestions. Mr. BENETT was astonished to hear it said that the remission of taxes would not relieve the people.. He admitted that the taxes did not fall on paupers ; but if those on whom the taxes bore were relieved from them, was it not evident that Vat farmers could give.laxger wages to the poor than they now did Mr. COURTENAY disapproved of the motion for a Committee. The resolutions would fill a pamphlet, and no Committee could ever get through them.
Mr. SLANEY recommended the amendment of the poor-laws.
Mr. E. DAVENPORT denied that the country was overpeopled ; it was capable of producing double the quantity of produce it now yielded. We ought not to arraign Providence.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT thought that if the redundant. population could be removed, a too rapid increase in the, numbers of the poor might be prevented. The Irish gentlemen ought to support their own poor. He was sorry that the mover, instead of coming to a single point, had got into a long strire, of resolutions, upon which, if he might judge by the dis- cussion which had taken place, no two persons would be found to agree. Let him brinn.6 in a bill for colonization, if a good case could be made out. This would lead to a practical result, which these resolutions could not. Another member had recommended to " give every poor man an acre of land." Why. to be sure, if they could make the poor rich, they would be no longer poor. (Laugater. But would not such a system lead to all those mischiefs which they were now labouring to eradicate in Ireland, where the same system had been tried, and, far from succeeding, had produced those mischiefs ? Sir GEORGE MURRAY delivered the results of much reflection on the way in which emigration ought to be conducted.
In the first place, he thought that a well-considered system of granted lands in the colonies should be settled. Secondly, he thought that there should be establishments at the out-ports, to which people desirous of emigrating might apply, and by means of which arrangements might be made with pa- rishes or persons who were willing to contribute towards the expense of carrying out those who had not the means, but were willing to emigrate. He had always, however, been of opinion that the country ought not to incur any large expense for the conveyance of persons to the colonies. But, with these views on the subject of colonization, he had considered the subject of granting lands to the emigrants. By one class of emigrants lands would of course be purchased. To another class, land should be given on payment only of the fees which were payable in the colonies on the grants of land. To the next class, lands should be granted at the expense only of the survey. To the last class, land should be given ; and even more than this—such assist- ance as implements of husbandry, and for a time, provisions.
Mr. BARING thought that emigration would relieve the country considerably; and that the counties which suffered from the present state of the poor-laws would contribute to the expense of it.
Colonel O'GRADY thought there was no redundant population in Ireland. There would be plenty of employment in that country if the landlords would reside there.
After a few words from Lord AT:1110RP, Mr. A. BARING, Mr. SLA- NEY, Mr. HUME, and Lord SANDON, Mr. W. HORTON, in reply, stated that he should feel great pleasure in coasenting to withdraw his present motion 1hr a Committee, but he was determined soon again to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, either by moving a resolution or by introducing a bill.
4. POOR OE IRELAND. Mr. SPRING RICE moved for a select COM- mittee to inquire into the state of the Irish Poor. In a very long speech, he dwelt on the improving condition of Ireland—on the good effects produced by certain charitable institutions—on the mischievous con- sequences which would certainly follow the introduction of English poor-laws—and on the advantages that would result from a different administration of the Grand Jury Laws, and a liberal expenditure on public works. General GASCOYNE, in seconding the motion, observed, that he never knew an Irish member bring forward a proposition which did not end in a demand for money. He was disposed to check the im- migration of Irish labourers, by subjecting themto imprisonment and 'hard labour on their arrival in this country. Mr. DAWSON had never listened to a speech so devoid of reason and common sense as that of the gallant General.
Mr. F. LEWIS recommended the Scotch system of poor-laws.
Mr. BROWNLOW denied that England suffered by the immigration of Irish.
Mr. M. FITZGERALD thought that the exchanges between the two countries were equal. _ Lord F. L. GOWER had never been able to understand that absen- t2eism was no evil. He did not believe that poor-laws would check the immigration of Irish into this country. Mr. PEEL thought the question a very complicated one. Nothing could be more specious than the proposition that poor-laws should be extended to Ireland, yet nothing could be more certain than that serious mischiefs would result from such a measure. He did not think that the Legislature were called on to interfere with absentees. The question of poor-laws deserved the most serious inquiry. Mr. SLANEY remarked that Mr. Peel's opinion seemed already formed. The influx of Irish labourers—the consequences of that influx on the comforts and morals of the English—called for a change of system.
Mr. A. DAWSON denied that the Irish who found their way to this country were vagrants. Mr. O'CONNELL seemed to think that the morality of the Irish suffered by contact with that of the peasantry of England. A committee was appdinted.
5. UNION OF CIVIL AND MILITARY OFFICES. On the question. on Tuesday, that the report of the Committee of Supply be brought tip, Mr R. GORDON moved as an amendment, " That it is the opinion of this House, that as certain regulations are in force by which Half-pay Officers of the Navy, Army, Ordnance, or Marines, are prevented from receiving the whole or part of their half-pay, during the period they may enjoy the emoluments of any civil office, it is expedient and Just that the same regulations shall extend to all officers of the Army, Navy, Ordnance, or Marines, in the receipt of full pay or of profit from Naval or Mi- litary allowances, or from emoluments from Naval or Military appointments."
Mr. Gordon did not object to a military man holding a civil office; but
when he did hold a civil employment, he ought not to enjoy a greater benefit
than a civilian holding a similar situation. For example, if any person hold- ing a Parliamentary pension obtain a civil employment, the practice up to this time has been that he make his election between the one and the other : if he accepted the one, the other immediately abated. A military officer on full pay, accepting a civil situation, did not relinquish thereupon the full pay, but the holder of half-pay lost it instantly. In that there was anything but fairness.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE opposed the amendment ; and so did Sir FRANCIS BURDETT and Mr. C. FERGUSSON.
Lord ALTHORP insisted that it was the dutfof the House to enforce economy, however painful it might be to economize at the expense of individuals.
The statement made by Mr. Gordon had not been answered in the slightest degree. It seemed to him a partial system, to deprive the lower ranks of offi- cers of their half-pay if they accepted civil situations, and to allow the higher ranks to retain their full pay with official situations. Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Fergusson seemed to think that the half-pay was to be continued al- ways at the same amount. If that were the way in which they pressed eco- nomy on the Government, they might be sure that the Government would steadily attend to their recommendation. (Cheers.) Mr. HUSKISSON recommended that the amendment should be with- drawn—only, however, in point of present expediency.
He thought that the time was come when the whole system of superannua- Cons, allowances, pensions, aud half-pay must, from the circumstances of the country, become a subject of investigation. The House ought to go into
such an inquiry, not with reference solely to half-pay or full pay, but with reference to every kind of salary. It would be well for the Government to take up this subject ; but if it did not, and if no other member more compe- tent to the task did, he did not know that he should not call the attention of the House to the subject himself, before the close of the Session. (Cheers.) Mr. GORDON would consent to withdraw his Amendment, providing ii. were understood that Government or Mr. Huskisson would take up the subject. Mr. PEEL protested against its being understood that Government was pledged to take the matter up. Mr. HUSKISSON would not pledge himself to bring it forward. Lord Howicx hoped the amendment would not be withdrawn.
He regretted that the Members for Westminster and Kirkcudbright should encourage the Government in its extravagance. The Government was ready enough to attend to recommendations similar to those.
Mr. MABERLY spoke against the plurality of offices. The amendment was finally withdrawn.
5. TREASURERSHIP OF THE NAVY. The order of the day for a Committee of Supply having been moved last night, Sir JAMES GRA- HAM moved as an amendment,
"That it is the opinion of this House, that the late vacancy in the office of Treasurer of the Navya.fforded an opportunity to save the sum of 3,000/. a- year, without any violation of existing engagements, and without any detri- ment to the public service."
This appointment was a violation of the voluntary pledge which Ministers had given to the country. The office of Treasurer to the Navy should be annexed to some other department, and the salary saved to the public. It had been pretended that the office was a re- sponsible one, and that a premium was necessary to cover the risk • but to what did the responsibility amount ? Large defalcations had taken place while Lord Goderich held the office ; but instead of making them good, his Lordship merely satisfied the Lords of the Treasury that he had not connived at the frauds. The office had been hitherto united with another office, and in many instances no salary attended the discharge of its duties. These duties were but trifling, as Mr. Tierney, who had held the office, declared ; and they would now be lightened by a Bill for consolidating and amending the Acts relating to Seamen's Wages, which the present Treasurer meant to introduce. The Paymaster of the Navy, in fact, discharged the duties which were supposed to attach to the Treasurer. To make a separate office of the Treasurership to the Navy, was but part of the scheme of Government to swell the number of their dependants, their makeweights in Parlia- ment. He knew that Ministers were besieged by applicants for place, but it was the duty of the House to come between Ministers and the petitioners, and say that offices were neither to be made nor had. (Cheers.) There were already seventy placemen in the House.
In two Committees lately appointed, there were to be found in one seven members of the Government and three East India Directors—in the other there were six members of the Government ; so that there were twelve or thirteen placemen in two Committees, one of twenty-one and the other of twenty-five members.
The close and steady phalanx of their dependants enabled the Go- vernment to carry any measure. The present time presented features which were to any mind alarming. That House was rapidly sinking in the opinions of the people, and it was most important to retrieve their character in the eyes of those who sent them there. If one spark of that fire which animated the bosoms of their fore- fathers, and which yielded but for an hour to the iron hand of Cromwell himself, yet remained,—if they were prepared to demand that pledges now broken should be maintained good,—if they were prepared to demand the fulfilment of the promise made by the Government at the commencement of the session, that the most rigideconomy should be observed in all the public offices—a promise broken by the present appointment to the Treasurership of the Navy, before the ink in which that promise was written had dried upon . the paper—(Hear, hear!)—this then was the opportunity for that purpose. Let the House prove to the Duke of Wellington himself that it is not baulked; that promises, although lightly made, were not to be lightly broken; and that there was still spirit enough in its members to vindicate its dignity, outraged by such a violation of engagements, and to make the opinions and feelings of the people available through the power of the Parliament. (Much cheering.) Sir GEORGE CLERK maintained that the duties of the Treasurer of the Navy demanded the whole time of the person who held the office. Mr. CALCRAFT maintained that the recent appointment was a measure of economy. The salary had been lowered 10001. and the office of Paymaster would be abolished, by which 12001. a-year more would be saved.
Lord Howicx. supported the amendment. Mr. CROKER. descanted on the importance of the duties which de. volved on the Treasurer of the Navy, and contended that the dignity of the office demanded the present salary. Mr. Husictssoist supported the amendment. Ministers, in con-- formity with their pledges, were bound to have united the office in question with some other, and saved the salary. He had held the office, and could state that the duties were discharged by the Pay- master. It had been said that the Duke of Wellington's Administra- tion had made greater reductions than any that preceded it. Such a statement had no foundation whatever in truth. Mr. Pitt, between 1783 and 1786, had made fifty-fold greater reductions than the Duke of Wellington had done. He saw it would be perfectly useless to suggest reductions to the present Ministry. (Hear, hear !) Sir GEORGE C OCKBURN declared that Mr. Huskisson knew nothing of the subject on which he had been speaking. Mr. HUME supported the amendment strongly. Mr. PEEL defended the o character of the Administration. To support the amendment he stated, would be to censure Govern- ment,—a measure which he certainly held to be uncalled for. He was astonished at the change which his right honourable friend and former colleague's opinions had undergone on this question. For the amendment, 90; against it, 188.
