Star. — London, England, 1828-06-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARISANENT. • HOUSE OF L'RDS,'" alvms 20. Arrosnsv-Gnintam. was heard in reply to Mr. Hount,,and dwelt at considerable length on the affidavits of Dr. Biiikeley; Hr did net think that his Learned Friend (Mr. Horne) had in a* one ease sifeceeded in throwing doubt on the evidence ottltat Gentle— man. He thought that his Learned Friend bad not put their Lord- slaps in possession of the real facts and circumstances of the case, ri they affected either Mr. Wellesley or the children. He should, therefore, consider himself bound to make a clear and concise nar rative of the cue. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to give an account of the cue, commencing with the marriage •of Mr. Wellesley with Miss Long. The Benefices Regulation Bill was read a second time, on the sodon of the Archbishop of Cants:amour, and ordered to be cons mitts4 on Monday scat. XISILAGZ TROY THt commons. Sir A. Own, and other 'Members of the House of Commons, Wu& up the Promissory Notes Bill. the Liverpool Improvement Billvond several other Private Bilk, and announced that the Cum mins had agreed to the Covent Garden Market, god several other Puha. Bills. The Property in India Bill went through a Committee. 'The other Bills before the House were fort/forded in their re- "sake stages, The Duke of RUTLAND presented Petitions for the Repeal of- the *Law limiting the circulation of Small Notes, from Scar borate', in the county of Turk. and from Grantham, in the county of Lincoln ; also a Petition from Cambridge, for the Abolition of Slavery. 010 the *notion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, the third reading of the Corn Bill was pestpooed from Monday to Thuriday Itert. w% • MIMI DISTRAWCIEUSIMINT BIM The Earl of CARNARVON, in moving the second. reading of this Bill, would not enter into the details of the evidence, but he must call upon their Lordships to pronounce whether there was not evidence to show that the Borough had been corrupt for a very long period, and continued so up to the present day? • In 1802 the Borough was in such a state, that the Counsel in favour of the Borough bad been compelled to admit at their Lordships' Bar, that if the business had been taken up at that time, the case against the Borough would have been complete. It was fortunate for the Borough, if any thing could be fortunate for a Borough so Situated, that it was not brought before the House twenty years ago. The whole that was attempted in defence was to show that same great improvement had taken place since that period. The practice of giving breakfasts had been kept up to 1806; but in 1807 it appeared to have ceased —that was after the prosecution of Sir C. Hawkins.— Sir C. Hawkins was acquitted of the crime of bribery, but when the difficulty of procuring a conviction was considered, much importance would not be ascribed to that acquittal. It would be strange indeed, if the 800 rough.which was perfectly corrupt in 1806, had become perfectly pore in 1807. But there was direct evidence of bribery in 1807. In the election of 1812 they had, it was true no proof of bribery. The candidates and voters had both been deterred or rendered cautious by the legal prdceedings in the case to which he had al luded. But in the year 1818 Mr. Swann was the suc cessful candidate, and he had been convicted of bribery at that election. In 1820, this severity was found to bare bad a salutary effect, and upon that occasion Me. ;Greenfell was returned without bribery. But the circumstances under which that Gentleman - retired from the Borough ought to be recollected. He said in his letter to the electors, that he had been honestly elected once, and that as he could not be so elected again, he would withdraw. In the more recent elections of 1824, he would do Mr. Stanton• and Mr. Barclay the justice to say, that be believed they entered upon the contest determined to fight it honestly—but before the election had proceeded far, their agents had to accuse each ether reciprocally, and the praitise of hribm was resumed. The Noble Earl then proceeded in lose detail through the evidence, and Insisted 'that it made out erase of one-third to one half of the toter: being accessible to bribery. He knew he should be opposed upon this occasion by those Noble Lords, by whole he bad always been, and feared he always should be opposed, upon questions similar to the present. He did not mean to intimate that these Noble Lords had not paid the strictest attention to the evidence, or that they did not wish to decide justly; but he could not but apprehend that those Noble Lords, who had acquired a very strong bias in favour of what were called vested rights, and who, by their habits in Courts of Justice, were naturally led to require rigid proof in cases where puaishmeat was to be inflicted, would take a view of the subject not .so enlarged or so constitutional as he could.wisb. What,.was the right in a poor voter in Penryn, which, unless he meant to sell the exercise of it, was of little value to him,- to be put in competition with the purity , f the House of Commons? if there these were a hundred men, in a Borough like this, who laid by in order to wait to see if any body would offer a bribe, what chance was them that a pure election would take place one time in ten? He thought it his duty to ask their Lordships to agree to the second read ing of the Bill. It was their duty to do something, and if any Noble Lord thought the evidence did not warrant the extreme measure of extinguishing the Borough, an amendment might be proposed in the Committee. The Noble Lord concluded by saying that be would suggest, if it rested with him, the extension of the right of voting to the freeholders of the Hundred in which Pen ryn was situated, not to the 4011 1 ` freeholders, but to a highet class of freeholders. _He suggested this course, because be doubted whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the. Bill in its present shape, but be did not think it a course genet ally eligible, as it tended to take, away from the monied interest that indirect represents-, tion which it now enjoyed. The Logs) CHANCELLOR -having been called upon toast-in that choir doting the progress of the' evi- 1 dence. , would now address their Lordships, because htt thought they would expect him to state the effect chit evidence bad produced upon his mind. He was also induced to trouble their Lordship., and he would do so very Wee', because the Noble Earl had referred par ticelarly to him in the course cf his speech, and had supposed that by vittee of Some Overruling moral ne cessity, he must be advert* to the Bill. He would ask the Nob* Lord what reason he had, for any vote he bad her given ill Parliament , to suppose that he would be opposed to a Bill of this description, prosided it were supported by sufficient evidence? He must deny that the suspicion of the Noble Lord was either just or reason able, and after this denial he would now proceed to state tbewienimis upon which, after ;attentively listening to the steidiote as it was given at the bar, and after a careful pesos) of it afterwards, he concluded that the evidence to support the Bill was ens rely insufficient. The Noble Lord had cautiously retrained from referring to the for mer eases in which that House had agreed to Bills of .e same similar tb the preser.t. He did ant think this omission perfectly fair on the part of the Noble Earl, and he would leer to those cases, and show that in no instance had the House agreed to disfranchise a borough without having it proved, not by . speculation, not b 7 cosi/dote, but by distinct and unequivocal evidence; that the major part of the voters were corrupt.' first Cost di the *lad that had occurred was t h e case ilbordifiln. 4 Here the total number of voters was 140,' and'ocit.ttibet 92 were proved by clear ; distinct, and. decisive evidence to have been corrupt. It was proved that these 92 out of the 140.yotembed formed them selves into a club, that. they Were bound by hasty pen alties tcract-together, and that they hhd a committee to arrange their corrupt and criminal 'proceedings. This .was proVediry satisfactory evidence, ind if the present had been such a ease, he did not know, notwithstanding '.uhf-saunt of the Noble Earl, that he might not have voted for the Bill. The next case was that of Cricklade. The number of .voters•here was 200; of these 172.bad i voted for the successful candidate, and of these 172; it was proved by incontestible evidence, not by such evidence as that-now upon the table, that 162 had voted in consequence of bribery. Then came the case of AyteshurY. In this Borough the number of voters was four hundred and fifty. Out of this number it mar proved'that SOO had been assembled by beat of drum to receive their several shares in the distribu tion of the sums of money taken from candidates, and that fifty snore were employed in the task of distribut ing'those sums of money ; so that of 450 voters 350 were proved to be guilty of corruption. There was only one other case which the House had treated in a manner different from any of those be had mentioned, having extinguished the franchise altogether. This was the case of Gmmpound. The number of voters in this borough was 58, and 47 were proved to have been corrupt, leaving the number of pure voters only 11. The 47 corrupt voters had been tried, and the most of them convicted in a Court of Law, and the few who escaped conviction were indebted for their escape to Some accidental informality •or defect of evidence. These were the cases which had already occupied the attention of the Legislature, and he would show bow widely the present case differed from them. He should vote against the present Bill, but he did not think when' he had pointed out the.extreme difference between the cases, that the Noble Lord would feel justified in the 'supposition that be would not have acted as the Legis lature had acted upon previous occasions. From the manner in which the Noble Lord had' addressed the House, they might pretty well judge of the merits of his case. He began with the election of 1802. Why did he net rather begin with the election of 1826? At this time there were four hundred and fifty voters, and only with respect to fourteen out cf the 450 voters had any evidence of corruption whatever been given. With respect to three out of the fourteen the evidence was not legal. This reduced the number t i eleven.—. And the evidence affecting these eleven was not all one way. With respect to many of them, it had been con tradicted by subsequent evidence, although there was no evidence whatever offered in defence of the borough, the advocates for the borough having thought it un necessary to call witnesses. The Noble and Learned Lord here proceeded at considerable length to compare and comment upon the evidence touching the election of 1826. The Noble Earl had alluded to the election of 1824. At this election there were only seven or eight persons proved to have been bribed. In 1818 the Noble Earl said there was judicial proof of bribery. To a certain extent this was true. There was evidence of three instances of bribery at that election. But Mr. Swann had been convicted of bribery. Yes, he had been convicted. He had bribed one elector, and he (the Lord Chancellor) would state .to their Lordships the circum stances and manlier of his guilt. One of tile electors owed him a-sum ot money, for which he held his ac ceptance. The elector promised to vote for him upon condition that he forgave him the debt. He did so, and destroyed the bill of exchange. - This was no doubt an act of bribery, and it was of this solitary-act that Mr. Swann had been found guilty. In 1812 there was no proof of bribery. It was in consequence of this election that Sir C. Hawkins was prosecuted for bribery and acquitted. In 1806, the breakfasts, of which they had heard so much,were in fashion it was said. It was hardly necessary to dwell upon the evidence in support of this charge against the borough, since among the 450 voters of the present day, there remained only 90 who bad been voters in 1806, and of the 90 who actually survived, not one had' been iccused of bribery. If they webt one step further back, to the election of 1802, they would find that no more than 50 of the voters ot that day were included in the present 450 voters of the borough. He was pursuing the same course as the Noble Earl, only he pursued it inversely, and he would ask the Noble Earl whether any thing that could now be alleged of the transactions of 1802 could be a sufficient ground for disfranchising the borough? He would abstain from any gpneral remarks, although the case was pregnant with observations. He should have liked very well to have had an opportunity of dissecting the speech of the Noble Earl, but he felt that he had already tres passed too long upon their Lordships time. He should meet the motion for the second reading of the Bill with a direct negative, and he felt that in doing so he was acting as a true friend to the Laws and Constitution. Lord DE DUNSTANYILLE referred to certain declarations made by some of the witnesses with respect to the interest which he had in the borough, and de fended himself from any supposed interference in the elections for the borough. He agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord, that the evidence did not furnish any proof that actual bribery had taken place, and therefore he should give his vote against the Bill. The Earl of ELDON should .not have troubled their Lordships with a single observation,. had he not had the misfortune to be included in the number of those whom the Noble Earl thought disqualified to give 'an opinion upon . a case like the present, because they had been spoiled by habits of judicial inquiry. He should Only say, that in the whOle course of his judicial expo• rience he had never_ met with a case so destitute of foundation as this. Lord DACRE thought the evidence insufficient, if the case were to be' considered as.a judicial one. • But are had another reason tor opposing the motion, after tte sugkestion hi. Noble Friend had throv.n out, which was, that the Bill would still further marrow the sem 'recitation of personal property, which, in his opinion, they. ought upon every opportunity to extend, ! The Marquis of SAL ISBURY had a strong objec tion to the preamble of the 8011. It contained the words Whereas the increased wealtle and population of Manchester :ender it expedient that that town should. send two Burgesses to Pasliament,". &e. This sentence, alone included the whole principle 4' Reform in Par. liament, and it was a principle which he would never suffei to bo smuggled into that House. U.posi this ground, had the evidence been as strong as it was we.k, he should have opposed the Bill. • The Earl of CARNARVON said, it was the prin ciple upon which our ancient Monarchs had acted in summoning the Representatives of the Commons to Parliament. That great and radical man Henry the Eighth,• considered it the only principle upon which a House of Commons could be erected. As he perceived the sense of the House to be against him,'he would not gess his motion to a division . .. The Marquis of SALISBURY edngtatulated the Noble Earl .upon his disposition to return to the good old days of Henry the Eighth. The motion was negatived without a division. The House then adjoutara it ZINO ifCioes *EU Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Sir Grouse took the oaths and.his teat for Pertheitiraj Mr. F. WEST presented a Petition Own Denbigh, in favour of the,Srintil Note circulation. Genoa! GASCOYNE presented a Petition from West India Proprietor., praying that the war duties on Sugars might be taken off. Mr. A. IDAWSON presented a Petition from persons in the .Colonty and City of Kilkenny, complaining of tie Trustees of a Charity there. • • After some objection to its being received. urged by Mr. MOORE, Ste. en the ground that it severely attacked those who were not present to defend themselves, by counter-statements or otherwise, the Petition was brought up.and read at length. It complained that purchasis of lands, &c. as directed by the founder, had not been complied with; children were not educated; maidens were not portioned ; in fact, general neglect was charged; and those parties were in such abject poverty. that they could not prosecute their claims against the trustees of JOsepti Evans's property. They prayed the interference of the House, and the amendment of the detective laws on the.subject. Mr. A. DAWSON said, that a more proper Petition could not have been presented ; the Petitioners did nut particularly attack individuals. but required an amendment ci( ;belay:. TheSP EA K E It observed, th3t such objects could only be effected by a private Bill; and the period for presenting such Petitions. during the present Session, had long since Varied. The Petition was eventually withdrawn. • Sir GEORGE HILL presented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce, Londonderry, against the Bill making the Nutes in Ireland payable at the place whence issued by the Bankers. Mr. RICE said, that the Petition proved that his Bill was known in the remote parts of Ireland; and he urged the utility of the Bill. • Mr. MOORE contended that the Bill was only calculated to throw embarrassment* in the way of the !Linking system of Ire land; that the currency In Ireland was in reality a paper currency ; and that public inconvenience from such a state tit tbino had , tiot been shown. He should oppose this Bill. Mr. GRATTAN maintained thal the Bill was most essential to the country ; that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ( Mr. Moore) might be a good advocate for the Bank of Ireland in )Dublin; but that he regretted the Bill did not go much further as regarded one pound notes in particular. He was fur assimilating the currency of the two countries. Petition read, and ordered to be printed. Sir A. CHICHESTER presented a Petition from Belfast for the better regulation of the Coast Duties en Coals. Mr. Moons and Mr. Gomm( urged this subject as seriously requiring the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the interference of Parliament. Petition ordered to be printed. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a Petition from Wexford, com plaining of the expense of the Police, and of various abuses exist ing in the Irish Police.—Ordered to be printed. Colonel SII3THORP gave notice that early in the next Ses sion he should move for leave to bring in two Bills—one to re peal the Act prohibiting Small Notes after April, 1829 ; and, a second, for the more equal regulation of Postage throughout the kingdom. Mr. HUME presented a Petition from West India Proprietors residing in Aberdeen, praying that a Commission might be sent out to inquire into the real state of Negro Slavery, &c.—Ordered to lie on the table. The Lords' Amendments to the Scotch Lunatics Asylums Re gulations 1310 were read and agreed to, on motion of the LORD ADVOCATt. The LORD ADVOCATE then presented the Report of the Committee on the Scotch Gaols Bill, adding, that he did not in. tend to press it forward this Session; the subject was one of great importance, but be was desirous that it should have the amplest consideration. Mr. li. DRUMMOND admitted that the Bill had been much amended in the Committee. Report ordered to lie on the table, and the. Bill, as amended, or dered to be printed. • . Mr. BIRCH presented a Petition - from the United: Artisans of Nottingham, in favour of the circulation of One Pound• Notes.— Ordered to be printed. A bleisage from the Lords announced that their Lordships hail agreed to the Amendments of abe Law of Evidence Bill. The House at its rising, on the motion of the CHAPICIELLOIL of the EICHIQL,II4 was ordered to adjourn till Monday next. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER inoVed the post ponement of the second reading of the Additional Churches Bill until Monday. Mr. J. WOOD objected at some length to the Bill, and said he should move its postponement for a fortnight. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he bad consented to postpone the Bill in compliance with the request oftbe Hon. Member, and he therefore appOilect to the House, whether it was fair that upon his motion for postponing it the Hon. Member should go into the details of the Bill ?• After a few wordi of er . planalion from Mr. Woo's, Mr. Huaa and the CHANCILI;9II of the Ezcsizeurs, the order was postponed to Monday. SUPPLY. Upon the modon of the CHANCELLOIS of the Excninanza, the House. resolved itself into a Committee of Supply. Sir H. HARDIN GE. moved a vote of £1 46.500 for the Charge of the Pay of General Officers for the year 1868.—Agreed to. For the Charge of Garrisons at Home and Abroad, £6,898 10s. 6d. Colonel DAVIE sAid, that he did not mean to offer any opposition to this or any other vote, as he saw that the House were not disposed iolisten to any proposition fur economy. When they were, he. danu:d again be ready to offer his set vices to the country. .. Sir H. H A RDINGE said, he was - glad thee bis Hon. and Gallant Friend did not mean to offer further op po• Unit' vi the Estimates. • Being on his legs, he wished t e appeal to his Gallant Friend upon the subjedt.cilthe List di-Cussion of these Estimates. • He-bad received a communication it mu a hired of his; formedy a Lieut. Colonel in the 60th Regiment, expressing astonishment at his having stated that the 60th was a condemned Regiment. He made no such statement. He could not have made it, becau•e, when his Gallant Friend said that his argument was worth nbthiog, on account of the 60th having been a condemned regiment, he got up and denied that they were so. Colonel DAVIES said, that he did not recollect any such expressions having fallen from his GallaakyTiend. But there und• übtedly was a general impression that one battalion of the 60th was formerly a-condemn:l:l corps. He had not said that the whole regiment were so at any time, or that any part of the tegiment were considered so now. Mt.` HUME agreed with his Gallant Friend, that little in the way of economy was to be expected •riom the House, but he should continue lo appeal• to the Right Honourable Gentleinan oppositens to chi ooces. o sity of 'educing a gleAt part of the deastebesge in our., establishments. •He must say that ••in itle-ophaiori ; if they had not a better Ministry than Moose of Coxii mons, the country would be very poorly off (A laugh). He now looked upon the . Ministry as. the' defence of. the people against the House of Comment: The Honourable Member then made various objections' to the vote, and pointed out the impropriety of havjng a military Governor at Berwick, where there was no garrison. . . . Sir H. HARDINGE.seid, it was not pretended that; any duty was attached to such offices- these; . ' They were kept up as a means.of bistoWing bOuoracyrevouds for important services. •If the Houseqe9ilitsVtliaoe. neral Officers.: after forty years of meritorious service, should be left withoursoy,other provision than the two or three hundred a year allowed bytheir pay. As sorne• now were left, then thefe 'additional rewards should be abolished. But in candour he was bound to say, that no intention Was entertained of reducing them at present. Colonel DAVIES said, that Officers who had pet formed valuable services should be rewarded in a Alfa.; lerent manner. .‘lr. HUME wished to know what were the metier:, rious services of the Governor of Dartmouth Castle; i civilian ? Sir H. HA RDINGE said, that the Governorship of Dartmouth Castle had been in the family.of the (ien tlimau who now holds the office of Governor, for a cen• tury and a half. It was regarded as a kind of heredi tary right in• that family for out of it>s Members to fill the office. Mr. HUME said, the family of the Gentlem an held ihe office influenced the return of the Nien i b t for that borough, which was a very euscic ion, c stance.. Sir J. WROTTESLEY objected strongly to th e , s. pointment t o t h e office being considered as a vested terest. . Sir JAMES GRAHAM expressed the same meats. If the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir H. liardi oxe) would positively assure him that the appointment va , necessary for the public Service, he would not opp,„; the vote ; but unless some such assurance was give n , should certainly move an amendment that the vo te h . reduced to the amount of the salary attached to od office objected to. Captain BASTARD stated, that the office of G oetz nor of Dartthouth Castle • bad not been given t o member of the family of Mr. Houldswotth for up wards of a century and a half without reason. He belie ve d that on inquiry the fact would be found to he, th o 0. 4 family of Mr. Hooldsworth, together with the Corpora, tion of the Borough, had detrayed the charge of build: ink the fortress. Lord JAMES TOWNSHEND said he could creak from expeti-nce as to the utibty of Dartmouth e asth , and the efficiency with uh ch it was superintended, j a the year 1800 he commended ore of his Majes ty ., vessels, and being chased by two French priva teers b e received protect on from ti e guns of the fottleA,_. Without th.i protetthm hi. bhp and him , elt must hav e bt.enlost. Oa grits on shore he found the fon:fie/tic!! in go..rd order. The N ble Lord conffimeu th e s;att, ment of the Hon. Member for Devon. Mrs 04 A BERLY was of pinion that inquiry ought to be a u k Sir H. H A ii. OINGE said he would make every inqu iry , Sir J. GE AH A %l said, he must persevere in tak its the s e m e4 the House, unless the vote was postponed until inquiry was nude, The CHANCILLott Of the FICIII.:QUEK end Sir [fusser g loss ic . minded the C4 ' minitter of the statements Which had been ircie. After a few remarks from Captain 13ASTAKI., Mr. 111:4; Mr. It. Gounota, the House divided, when there appearel, For the original Motion • • • •70 For the Amendment . . . . Majority against the Amendment . —32 The next votes were-112,;001. for the lull pay of ratir•n and unamched Officers of the Army; 720,‘-'2of. tot 1,,1f. Metre. Sir J. GRAHAM inquired whether Mr. lien: n. the het:link: of the Army Accounts, did not, besides his salary in that situ-attar, receive tfalf:paY . as Deputy Commissat y • Gesier.il ? and whethtthu half pay was not issued upon a Treasury IVairant, he not bring legally entitled to it for that rank ? If it were so, he thought it a grave and unconstitutional offence on the part of the Treasuty,an4 an assumption of the dispensing powers of the lions, of Conuunta Sir H. H A !WINO E said, that Mr. U , town did tective half. pay as stated: He had entered the department lie was now hits 1784, and was SeCretary and Clerk under General Fitznatrici,by whom he was recommended, with the sianc:ion f Lord Grenville, for half pay. As he could not receive it hi the usual way, it wo certainly issued by virtue of a Treasury Warrant, which the Trea sury had the power to grant under the Appropriation Act. It was not at all likely that a similar thing would again occur. Mr. HUMF. wished to know whether the practice which had been productive Of a loss of a million and a halt to the country, that of allowing the sale of half pay commissions, was put an end to? Sir H. H A KDINGE said that it was. No more such Wei would be allowed; but the HOB. Member had greatly esaggereed the loss to the public upon thefts. Only B.io were allowed in l 82.; to exchange, and upou the whole it was likely to be beneficial, as the widows and families of the O ffi cers wh o c a me i n upon that arrangement would not be allowed pensions. There was on this account, and others, every prospect of a reduction rather than at addition iii this charge. After a few words from - Mr. Hume, the vote wat agreed to. X 101,470 for half pay and reduced allowances to foreign Men, Mr. HUME wished to know if the widows and ramifies of foreign Officers would receive pensions Sir H. HA EWING E believed they had been put upon theme 'footing as British Officers in that respect. He, perhaps. might not think it right to make such an arrangement should a similar occa• *sion arise at any future time. Mr. HUMEtht,nght it full time we should discontinue making provisions forthe widows of foreign Officers. It was an induce. melt' to them to marry for the sake of melting a provision fur some female. Sir J. WROTTESLEY wished to know bow it was aseertaised that the Officers on the list of foreign half pay were alive ? Sir H. HA RD INGE said, they were obliged to present them selves before Civil Authorities abroad, front whom they el:naked certificates. The vote was then agreed to. £43,113 for military allowances to reduced and retired officers io his Majesty's land forces. After a desultory conversation the vote was agreed to. The next vote was 46,1151. for the expenses of the li,-Pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals. Mr. HUME complained of the great charge for Chelsea awl Kilmainham Hospitals. The Secretary at Chelsea held double offices, one.at 5001 and another at 6COL This he thought ought to be looked into. The late Secretary at War had certainly given then to understand that Kilmainham should be put ..0 end to. lie ad mitted that the salaries of the clerks at Chelsea were moderate-- they were a pattern to others. Lord PALMERSTON observed, that considering how largely Ireland bad contributed to supply our armies, we ought not too hastily to deprive the aged soldiers of the comfort of an csiablish merit like Kilmainham. Sir A. HOPE said; that these establishments were most valu able and humane aids to the poor soldiers in old age. It ou;lst nut to be supposed that they constantly niaintaiued the same bet of pen sioners; on the contrary they were constantly changing—aiways giving shelter to the old and Woken down in circumstaucco, who required a temporary asylum to recover themselves. Mr. MA BER LY thought that no person connected with these establishments ought to hold two offices at once. The yore was then agreed to. . £335,976 for the Out Pensioners of Chelsea Hospital. Mr. HUME said that last year 5,780 Pensioners bad been added to the list, and only 3,461 died in the course of the year. Titus they were going on increasing, and with 65,6 4 Pensioners alteady, it was time they should stop. All was not right in that quarter he was sure. Sir A. HOPE maintained, that not one man was put upon the list of Chelsea Petitioners who was not entitled to it. After some observations from Lord PALMCNSTON, Mr. Hosts, and Sir Hussite- VIVIAN, the vote was agreed to. On the question that 5C27,659 Vs. 7d. be granted for the support ' of the Royal Military Asylum, for the year 1828, Mr. HUME said, that the practice there reminded him of the manner in which buys played at soldiers. He thought that with 'an overgrowing population we ought not to support such an esta blishment. While we had a war, and that men fell in the held, it might have perhaps been right to be liberal; but when that danger ceased, he saw no neces-ity liar the maintenance of so large an esti bliahment. Including the cost of the girls' school at Southampton. it had already been an expense to the country of 7.1.7,000. and it 'really was nothing more than a farce to see the boys parading ..bout With drums and fifes; and all that manner of paraphernalia. dir H. HARPING R did nut think the Hon. Member would wiSli to have the sentiment recorded of him, that it was only when danger 'pressed such an establishment was to be kept up, and Oghcers receive the rewards which were due. If, however, in nine of peace there were no provision of the kind made, how were we is get men to go to the West Indies, where one-filth perished every year? It should be recollected that we had 74 battalions in the Coloniei,tini that the children of soldiers born there could not be turned over to the parishes, for no parish would receive them, where inTirlittaited" , kn there Puf were 9 tanttohoao overl,oo anAsyu rpns, nd lu o m. ha Of the a 1,300 children 'Ountber - there • Were not certainly m ore t ha n 300 wohin the bad whole bulb parent's alive: " . Sir A. HOPE also supp o rt e d ' t h e propr i ety o f k ee ping up the establishment, and said that in o n e s hi p f rom I n di a upwards Of forty.persons cam e ov e r w h o were fi t o bj ects f or i t . lilt. II UM /5 said, that he had been applied to from the neigh ' bourhood of one of t h e b oroug h s h e h a d t h e h onour t o represent s on beh-if of a widow wh o h a d t h ree c hild ren , f ora recent:Auntie don ; but finding th at t h e i r f r i en d s i n S cot l an d were a ble to main win them, he old not conceive they were fit objects for toe esra plaillltent, and ,refused accordingly. The people in Scotland, how ever, finding that there was such a place of relief, did get a recom mendation, and two out of the three were now in the Asylum.— ' tie would rather that no mote should be admitted, and that those n should be apprenticed to trades. The m..tiun was then put and agreed to. The Cuitamart put the resolution, that a sum not exceeding. 143,1831. be granted for the payment of Pensions to Ofriceni Widow:. hir. HUME said, that there was a subject be wished to abuse to t that or. the Chaplain General to the Forces, who had a -.day .taw cif 8041. a year, although formerly it was but 3001. 'nut sot ry which ought to be reduced, especially when its holder, hi web .cue Col L sine In eft datio or 1 dot, Cola to k , Pr 6 P that Gen ass lark 'Lori of th aftei 'offic , '&c. `oi 13 'fiery 'this 'coon 'lO. — List D e ry to p! was case be a wag this mall wer subj hay CODS Lope WOl.l so Is retit take be b the I a au 5,01 i be a rice fora half be fi and "TIM nom rive Hun duct of th •übj, Si train taint C I time Ilili feel Mill whe wer was Shot like anol lion the 1) 1 a( lan4 rim la 1%.0