Star. — London, England, 1816-06-14 00:00:00

~" Treasury. The, first 'related to the expenditure re ining to Foreign Embassies-. and particularly re garding a Right Honourable Gentleman recently appointed to. the Board of Controul. This Office bad remained so long vacant, that he began to hope it would be abolished. It appeared that the, Right Honourable Gentleman alleded to had been at length appointed to it; how this Right Honourable Gentle man. who at a former !retied had declared the Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury to be incompetent to the duties of his office, who had declared incapable . the Sieretary of Slate for the Foreign Department ; and by whom the Noble Viscount at the head of the Honie Department had not only been declared in competent, but had been (if he mielit use such an expression) terribly quizzed. How these PerlitiCiane could now all act harmoniously together he was at a loss to understand. It was true, however, that the Right Honourable Gent:ernan who now consented to dovetail the Administration might net wish to join the Opposition, who had not!,ing to give, and this might operate upon hill es it had operated upon others, who had cvaitted the froz 'n regions of Oporn . sition, to bask in the sunshine of Royal favour. The charge that he had to make arose out of the appoint ment of this Right Honourable Gentleman to the Enrbassy to the Court of Portugal with an enormous salary, and which the Right Honourable Gentleman, it appeared, in a speech to his Constituents at Liver pool, stated, was not sought by him, but thrust upon him ; and who ((other stated, that since last April he had only waited' the appointment of a successor, but that no successor for a considerable time arrived. He (Lord Grosvenor) charged therefore the Noble Earl at the head of the Treasury with a waste of the public money, and making and continuing such an appointment, though he must have known that there • was no probability of the return of the Court of Por tugal to Lisbon. His other charge was, that the Noble Earl had diverted 00,000 of the Public Money to the private use of the Prince Regent. It appeared, by a Paper on the Table, that 870,000 oui of the Droits of the Crown—(Hear. hear, from Lord Liverirool)—Did the Noble Earl Mean to say that the Druits were the priteete property of the Crown, to be disposed of at the caprice of the Crown, or that th 4 ought not to be appropriated, like, other F üblic monies. to the public service ? His charge, how ever, was, that R 70,000 of this money had been devoted to the private use of the Pt ince Regent to pay for fur niture and other articles at the Pavilion at Brighton. Ht)W the Noble Earl would answer these charges he was at a loss to anticipate, he considered them mist improper appropriations of the public money. His L rdship, with a view to move for a Committee of ',Noir}, moved to leave out the word now, for the the al reading of the Bill, and insert this day fortnight. The Fearl of 11A R ROWI3Y sew nogruupds what ever to oppose the appointment oh the Auditor. He argued at some Isaigth the disadvantageous state of the Cor:1 L;at prior to the proposed arrangement. Lord HOLLAND was of opinion that his Noble Friend had the justest grounds for the motion he had submitted to their Lottlships. The subject was in deed worthy o: the must serious attention, especially considering the declaration Ministers had given at the beginning of the Session. in the speech from t e throne, vie. that economy should be attended to. If, therefore, economy was as seriously the object of Ministers as this declaration evinced, it became their Lou elship. to inquire in what manner it could be practised ? No man was a greater friend than him self to measures of economy, but at the same time, he wished those meastues to be conducted in a manner advantageous to all parties. Much had been said respecting the office of the third Secretary of State, and he was afraid the views which his friends and himself entertained on this subject had been greatly misrepresented. He decidedly thought that was an (Ace which should be suppressed, and he founded his opinion on what had been stated by Mr. Boar. &sides, the duties of that office had in 1796 been discharged by the President of the Board of Controul, which latter office was novelto be filled by a late Ambassador front Lisbon. He did not mean to say this office was a mere sinecure, but err taiali the reconciliation recently effected between two tiiends had been at . the expense of the public. With respect to the new office, he certainly agreed - in the rfter..l opinion, that it was surely the best thing a man could do to have Iris accounts audited at once, arid thus to prevent perpetual jarrings. This ap pointment, no doubt, was during pleasure ; yet he certainly concurred in the general idea of some check being necessary. Ott thi, ground he could not object to the principle of the appointment. Respecting the I ddlereot comparisons made with the Civil Lists of America and France; he did not wish to go to either extreme. • li.e would, however, refer to America, parti.tdarly con,iderirg, as he did, the estimates of the Secretary of State in that country to be in gene ral very correct. let the whole expense of the Ame rican Civil List, taking the calculation at four dollars in the pound, di.! not eteonnt to much above ',100,000 The diplomatic part of the Government of America amounted only to £41,000, whereas the Embassy of Lord Castlereagh alone cost /MOM malting An increase of £2,(X)O even in this single department. Yet even with that increase, he certainly thought the ieterests of America were the better promoted of the two, i fact which no man who was acquainted with the situation of America could , deny. The indivi dual expense of the Chief Magistrate of America . (though Ire did not mean to adduce this as a model) amounted only to 2E7;000 annually, whereas the ex penses of our Royal Family cost £790,000 a year. His Lordship at very great length entered into dif ferent items of the expenditure of the Civil List, and concluded by suggesting . the impropriety of so many sinecures being allowed to exist in the country. The Earl of LIVERPOOL was glad to observe, that whatever differences of opinion might exist, not one objection had been offered to the general princi ple of the Bill. As tar as he understood the Noble B lion who had AA c t down, he thought he objected t o.sheoffice of Auditor, as not likely to accomplish the purposes for which it was intended. At t h e s ame time he was happy to observe the Noble Baron was not hostile to the plan he (Lord Liverpool) meant to accomplish, by this Bill. He would not now go over die grounds he had formerly gone over in support of the Bill, but he considered it certainly a subject of vast importance to the public. In reply to the charge booslit against him respe c t in g the a pp ointment of a night Honourable Mead of his to the Embassy at Lishon, he ced to usegreitteir Lordships, that at the period vorthat lippoistmekt the most. 'rational hopes were intertairied'of the Pace Regent of Por tugal then iiiiirning to his kingdom, and a vessel had actually Wien *ordered by his Royal Highnest lot that purpose. Besides, the appointment of this Am bits:War, was expected to be beneficial to both coun tries, and it had solely been undertaken on that view. With respect to the Crown Droits, which Jr jute be- longed to the Crown, his Lordship argued, that it was absolutely requisite to giant the Crown the un controlled authority of disposing of these. The cir cumstances in which the illustrious personage now exercising the functions of Government in this coun try were, as his Lordship argued, no better than it was actually necessary they should W. With respect to the office of the Auditor, it was clear that such an office was absolutely called for. Nu man could doubt the necessity of accounts being properly audited.— The object of this new appointment was to inform the 'treasury of the exact amount of the expenditure, and by a rigid examination into the different parts of that expenditure, to become a check on extravagance. It was an indisputable fact, that a man's affairs pros- pered in proportion to the vigilance he eget cised over them, and when once negligence was allowed to exist there was an end of all hope of prosperity. It was justly said, that no mall was ever ruined who knew carefully what he expended. His Lordship then entered at some length into a comparison of the Civil List of this country with that of France prior to the Revolution; and with the Civil List of Ame rica, which he argued bore no comparison to ones. As this country was a monarchical government, he maintained it was an essential feature of monarchy to preserve its splendour. Besides, our Royal Fa mily being numerous, a large expense was conse quently created to the country. He would not enter on the subject of Sinecures, though he considered the abolition of these as likely to create an additional expense to the country. He would not say more at present, as he was glad to see no objections offered to the Bill. Lord GROSVENOR contended, that. neither of the Noble Lords opposite had saitl a single word which ought to induce their Lordships to negative the proposition he had made, for inquiry in a Com mittee. .0u the contrary, all their arguments rather tended to suppott the which he had submitted. With respect to the personal expenditure of the So. vereign, he denied that any thing he said could be construed into disrespect, in comparing it with the expenditure of the Presiden.. of the United States.— What he chiefly depr , cated was, comparing the Civil List of this country with that of the despotic Sore -1 reigns of Europe. The Noble Eall had gone into a variety of topics in his spr:ecii, but he had wholly ab stained from answering the serious part of the charge brought against them respecting the appointment to the Court of Lisbon. lie sh .ukl regret the refusal of a Committee, because ite thought it was the only I way in which the provi..iols of the present Bill could be rendered effective, by such previous enquiry is a Cemari ace wocid afford. The :notion was then put and negatived without a division; atter which the Bill was read a third time and passed. The recommitment of the Irish Landlords' and Tenants' bill was postponed till next Thursday, after a few observations from the Earl of LIMEUICK and Lord HoLLAND.—Adjourned. HOUit OF COMMONS. Petitions were presented from different ilaces in Sunset against the Leather Tat, and from the Cotton Weavers of Dumbarton, praying fer protection. Mr. DUGDALE rose to sorest a mis-statement which had gone abroad in soMe of the Papers, of what he had said en a former night on the subject of the manufactories of small arms. What he then said wa* that though In consequence of the ar rangement which had taken place en the subject, much of the alas in which bad arisen un the occasion among the private manu facturers of Birmingham had sutsidetl, yet that the arrangement ought to be view/4 d with • jealous eye, as private manufacturers could probably supply the arms at a cheaper rate. Ihe Rape Seed Bill was read a second time.—Report to morrow. The Sugar Bounty Bill was read a second time.—Report to morrow. _ _ In a Committee on the Paste-board Bill, certain Resolutions were agreed to.—Report to-morrow. The Hydrometer Bill was read a third time, and passel. The Report of the Committee of the Rape Seed Acts was brought up and agreed to, and a Bill ordered in consequence. The Report of the Guadeloupe Trade Bill was brought up, and, after a ftw words from Mr. GORDON ! Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. CAOUGIIAM, and MeCALCRATT, agreed to, and a BM ordered itt cons:.quence. The Report of the Committee on the Stone Bottle Duties was brought up and agreed to, and a Bill ordered in consequence. Mr. BROUGHAM brought up a Report of the evidence taken by the Committee on the Education of the Lower Orders, which w ordered to be printed. The Report of the Committee on Oil of Vitriol was brought up, and a Bill ordered in pursuance. 1 he Report of the Committee on the American Slave Act was brought up, the Resolutions agreed to, and a Bill ordered. '1 he 5a11.120. Preservation Bill was postponed till to-morrow. The Report of the Committee on, the Coal Importation Acts was brought up, and a Bill ordered. The Report of the Committee of Supply and Ways and Means was brought up and agreed to, and a Bill was ordered. The Rvort of the Irish National Debt Bill was brought up. To be read a third time to•morrew. The Rcpt.: of the Bank Balance Bill was brought up.—To be read a third time to-morrow. CONTEMPT Of CHANCERY. • Mr. BENNETr moved for a Return of the num ber and names of persons confined in the Fleet Prison for contempt of Chancery. He related the case of a person of the name of Wells, who had been formerly in a most respectable situation, and who was now, after a confinement in the Fleet Prison of 22 years, for con tempt, in a` state of insanity. Three other cases of equal hardship and cruelty he related, and argued. that there was. no proportion between the offences and the punishment. One man was held in the Fleet for a contempt, for doing what he could not do, and was bandied about from the Lord Chancellor to the In solvent Court, and from the Insolvent Court to the Lord Chancellor, though Jihad the .signatute of all the Assignees in his favour. He concluded by making his :notion. I4r. M. A. TAYLOR. stated a case where a man, after he had been 16 years imprisoned, retained in hia possession a paper, which he knew the Court wished for. He stated t:tis to shew there were cases in• which the Court could not and should not afford re lief. Many of the evils on the subject arose from attornies. It'vras a subject well' worthy of the uteri- Lion of the House. His. Noble Friend on the Wool sack, be was convinced, wished to do edery thing in his power to afford relief on the subject ; but he could not do so in many instances: For instance, in the 444 e of Pio Wool man alluded to. his Lordship could . . • not give leave toiArs hint . 'retried - to a Madhouse, is it would he considered as an escape.. The neV.l. thy of an Act of Parliament on the subject was there fore evident. Or. WROTTE SLEY defended the Courts of .Eichiquer and Chancery. Mr. BENNETT replied, and the Motion was agreed to. A Message from the Lords informed the House that their Lordships had agreed to several public and private Bills—(For which see Lords.) THE REV. JOHN GALBRAITH AND JUDGE FLETCHER. Mr. DALY rose to present a Petition from the Rev. John Galbraith, a Magistrate of the county of Galway, complaining of harsh treatment from Mr. Justice Fletcher, and praying for redress. He pre sented it from no private feeling against the Learned Judge, but to show that Magistrates were not en tirely at the mercy of the Judges, but could have redress when they were ill treated, even from the' Bench. Th. Petition stated, that the Petitioner had, in his capacity of Justice of the Peace, committed to rntol the widow of a man who had been murdered, and a man who had been thought to have been in adulterous intercourse with her, on suspicion of the murder; and that on the trial which produced the conviction and execution of those prisoners, Mr. Jus tice Fletcher had thought proper to animadvert on the Petitioner in a very harsh and unjustifiable man ner ; that afterwards, on the trial of a man whom the Petitioner had committed for sheep-stealing, and who KM acquitted, Mr. Justice Fletcher renewed his ani madversions on the Petitioner in a manner highly in- juriOus to his feelings and his character. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. THIL REV. J. HAMILTON. Mr. PRITTIE rose to move for-copies of the cor. respondence between the Magistrates of the cousty of Tipperary and the Irish Government, relative to the trial of 14 innocent individuals for an alleged conspi racy to murder the Rev. J. Hamilton, of Roscrea, in the county of Tipperary. The Honourable Member stated, that the Rev. J. Hamilton, who was a Ma gistrate as well as a Clergyman, took up fourteen men and committed them to prison, on the informa tion of a man of the name of Dwyer. He agreed with this man to stuff up an image of himself, and place it on an appointed night in his parlour window. Accordingly, on the appointed night, the image was fired at from outside. On the next day there were four persons taken up for this attempt at assassina don, and one of them confessed that he was present, and, with the before-mentioned Dwyer, gave infor .MatiOn against those persons, who were taken up and sent to a prison forty miles distant, where they were kept three months till their trial; on which their per fect innocence appeared so evident that one of the witnesses against them was immediately indicted for perjury. But those persons applied to Government for redress; their answer was, that Government could give them no redress, and that the law was open to. them if they thought themselves aggrieved. The Hon. Member dwelt on the unmerited sufferings of those poor people, and was surprised that Mr. Ha milton was still a Magistrate. Mr. PEEL defended the conduct of Government in this affair. Mr. Hamilton, though certainly his device on this occasion was very reprehensible, had on all other cccas;ons proved himself an active and highly useful Magistrate. Baron Gorge, before whom the trial alluded to took plate, though tic condemned the conduct of Mr. Hamilton in this in stance, had on another trial found his conduct highly prtise•worthy. The other trial was that of a Pulice Officer, whom Mr. Hamilton had dismissed from his situation for the grossest extortion. However, the other Magistrates of the Barony restored this man to the situation of Police Officer ; on which Mr. H. milton had him indic:ed for extortion, and tried at the General As:.izes, where he was convicted and broke. This excited the animosity of many of the Magistrates against Mr. Hamilton, to whose conduct on the occasion Baron George and Mr. Cleland bore the highest testimony. He was not aware that he had any more facts to state, but with respect to the iden- tical motion of the Honourable Gentleman, he thought that it would plainly appear that nothing had been done by Government to affect those Ma gistrates mentioned, and that Gentleman particu larly alluded to by the Hon. Member; and as no thing could tend more to disturb the peace of Ireland he could not but wish a negative to be given to the Honourable Gentleman's motion. Mr. BROUGHAM thought that the question now before the House tended more than any before agi tated to probe to the bottom, and to seek out the causes of the disturbances of Ireland. It was plain that the Chancellor in this case having had no offi cial account of this Magistrate's conduct, had not given his opinion, or made up his mind on the sub ject till he had consulted three of the Judges, and when he had received some reperts r and after a full aid deliberate investigation his mind was made up against removing the Magistrate, when no Chancellor in this country would have hesitated on his removal after the conduct of which he had been guilty. Mr. MANNERS SUTTON thought there was scarcely any man either in the House, or out of it, who could attribute improper motives to the Chan cellor of Ireland. Mr. PONSONBY did not wish to mention any thing on this subject which might prevent the recep tion of the petition by and by to be presented. He had been acquainted with the information in the case which gave rise to the correspondence relative to Mr. Hamilton, and he recommended measures of the greatest energy. He did not wish to say any thing against the Lord Chancellor Manners, but he thought it most unfortunate,' that a Christian Clergyman should be allowed to remain in office as a Magistrate. who had furnished powder, ball, and pistol, in a manner, for the purposes of murder. Though the firing of the pistol had not taken place, the conspiracy to murder was by the law of Ireland a capital offence. Mr. V. FITZGERALD thought that it was not quite fair to visit the Clergyman with the utmost se verity of the law, as he had been affected in a manner • which rendered him more an object of pity than in dignation. Sir J. NEWPORT supported the motion. , Mr. DALY explained. Mr. HurriE did not intend to take the sense of the House on his motion, considering the inlorma - tion he had had from the Geetlenien opposite. The Motion was oonsequently withdrawn. Lord CASTLEME4(O 4 II brought up several pa . , pers by order of the House, retpectiug C At t n r ci foreißn States, which were ordered to be rel ated to the Committee on the subject. MR. 0 1 11 AN LON. Mr. BROUGHAM had a petition in hi s h and, praying for a redress of grievances from Mr. o, Han. lon. That Gentleman, though of the gr eatest ch ,. racier and respectability, had been removed from Vie seat of Magistracy by Lord Manor's without any just reason. lie had petitioned the Lord Lieutenant and had been re-instated. He was, after some tint ! , however, again removed. On appeation to k now the cause, he was told that there was no direct re a , son, but that there were two statements against . one anonymous, and the other gentrfal. H e was re. ferred to the Attorney General, Mr.l.turin. B T hi m he was told that he was friendly to Catholic Em al „ cipation, and was, therefore, to be taken to be an enemy to the Protestant Administration. The state. meat of that Gentleman, that he had never lent !rm. self to any association, that he thought it entaorf:iy of any Magistrate to wear the badge of party, tt,, t he had beep removed, he believed, from ofEceb;:ta.,t,e he did not wear that badge, and bcc.tuse ct!crs 6d, was what might be scarcely credited, if it was ! let too true to be disputed. Mr. 0' Hanhtn had be ns means of defending himself. He did not mean to dory that the Chancellor had the power of striking e m n a me of a person as a Magistrate, hut he did &rot is power of striking out a iiame until a fair investl. N . tion had taken place.; it would not be for him tc, so in that House on his own authority, but he ar.., say it when he had the authority of the 1. ,, r(3 Cv n . cellor (Eldon). After some farther o'n!liitatior ; „ the Honourable Memher concluded by mov.nr... " That the Petition should be brcue.t up." Ti le Petition was then brought up and read ; it detailed the circumstances of Mr. O'Hanlon's two removal!, and prayed for such consideration as his case required. Mr. PEEL should not detain the Parise by ann. meats on this subject, but should state the facts which would be the best answer to what the Honour able Gentleman had said. The Honourable Gent!e. man had stated one of the best parts of the Lcrd Chancellor's conduct in this affair ; that he 4:ad wft ten to Mr. O'Hanlon after her had found he 114 d been doing wrong, and had told him that he had dor: : him injustice, and instantly reinstated I,:m. Was there any likelihood that the person who had s‘: nourably retracted his former conduct would be in fluenced by any sinister or political motive whatever? Mr. O'Hanlon presided in one of the Courts in the County of Down. There had been a Memorial stint to the Lord Chancellor ( Manners), signed by sixteen Magistrates and a number of respectable perbons, who prayed that his Lordship would please to order Mr. O'Hanlon to be removed from his office, as he fre quently used such language from the Bench as was calculated to excite a patty spirit atirtngst the lower orders, and that he supported nne particular party against another on every occasicn. It had been stated that Lord Manners had removed Mr. O'Hattlon pre. cipitately and without due delibera.ion and investiga tion ; but a Memorial before him stated, that that Noble Lord had not removed Mr. O'Hanlor. till he had consulted the Judges, :Is on another occasion.-- Some person had said, that the Lord Chancellor had admitted his haying acted in an arbitrary and gx•parts manner. He had a letter in his hand from the Loid Chancellor to Lord Do..vnshire, which did not chew that Lord Manners hid so unfavourable an opinion of his own conduct. Having heard the Honourable Gentleman's statement, and having defended the Lord Chancellor, he hoped the House would see the real reason for his actions. General NEEDHAM knew fourteen of the sir • teen Magistrates who had signed the Memorial which was mentioned by his Right Honourable Friend.-- They had always been men cf the most hcnourable conduct, who had stood by their country in the how of danger, and had done every thing in their power to protect the property of his Majetty's subjects. He had himself commanded forces ti)r that purpose in Ireland, and he had always acted as he ottht for the benefit of the country. Sir H. PARNELL did not think that there bad been that reason tor ►he dism•sal of Mr. &Hanlon which seemed to be supposed by the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for Ireland. General HART defended the conduct of the Lord Chancellor Manners. Mr. JONES defended the conduct of the Chan cellor. 'faking all circumstances together, he thougla: that the statements made by the petitioner had meat to express entirely opposite to what they said. Mr. HORNER considered that if the Petitioner had not stated what was the truth, and if the Lord Chancellor had .not made use of the language attri buted to him, the Petition was not to be rejected on that account, for it was at the petitioner's peril that he stated what was false. To lay down the doctrine that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland could, without tear of responsibility, act as he pleased, was most unconstitutional. The Great Seal, the power of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as well as of that of England, was held from Parliament, and they were to be answerable to that House for any part of their conduct that might ba thought improper. He should like to hear whether any of the Magistrates who signed the Memorial to the Chancellor were of the same political principles which had been protessvd by Mr. O'l-I,uilon ? Mr. JONES and Mr. PEEL explained. Sir JOHN NEWPORT was of opinion that as long as the Orange Societies existed, Ireland would never be at peace, and that if any Magistrate was not very fond of Orange principles he'was not likely to remain comfortable in his situation, and his bother Magistrates might readily agree to transmit a memo rial to the Chancellor fur his removal. In a country like Ireland it would be well if the Chancellor should consider such memorials carefully before they were acted upon. Sir JOHN STEWART thought that there existed as much or more party spirit in that House than in Ireland, especially in that part which had been al luded to in the course of the &bate. Mr. PONSONDY thought that the office of Chan cellor of Ireland was one of great responsibility, though there had cases come before him, when ire held the Seal, in which he would not have disclosed his reasons for rzmoving men from their Magisterial situations, though he was conscious of the propriety . of his conduct in having removed them. He did not thin ilt that the House could take any step upon the 1