Star. — London, England, 1820-07-13 00:00:00

vas so characterli ed. The wfiole - age of the tangit - Meeting had the same tendency. One said, f‘ that they had returned Mr. Ellis to Parliament, but the !_.eislatttre had unconstitutionally interposed. In' the next sentence he said, " the Guild were com posed of sober citizens—( A laugh)—the Parliament h..d no right to deprive them of their just right."---. The Noble Lord opposite was not the only Member who was attacked on this occasion. 'this Meeting dealt its 'bleeders on all sides of the House. His Honourable and Learned Friend, the MeMber for Knaresborinigh (Sir James Mackintosh), came in also for his share. One of these eloquent Gentlemen reprobated the i*pudent assertion of Sir allies Mackintosh, .Member for the obscure Borough of );naresborough, in Yorkshire—( Loud laughing)— rho dared to - legislate for the Citizens of Dublin !" Wats:sued laughter)--It was remarkable too, that ;his language had all been uttered by servants of the rrown, by the Chiefs of an Orange faction, who thought nobody loyal but themselves—(Hear, hear, heat). If, after the impression which what he just teal bad excited, the House would think that it was necessary to proceed any farther, he would move, " That the Master and Secretary of the Guild of Mer chants of Dublin be ordered to attend at the Bar of the Hoese, and to produce. the book in which these Re solutions were entered ;" for he believed they had not been published. Upon the suggestion of some Mem bers near him, the Hon. Baronet said, he thought it wonld be also necessary to have the Printer of the Pa- per, from which he read the Resolutious, called to toe' Bat of the. House. He added, therefore, " That Jean Magee, the Printer of the Dublin Evening Post, should attend at the Bar of the House." Lord CASTLEREAGH would put it to the lion. Batonet t and to the House, whether it was really de sirable to take up the matter in this way ? For his own part he thought not, for the language referred to was so very unlikely to have any weight with any sensible pet son-.-(Hatr). The tone was altogether so calculated to render such expressions perfectly harmless—(Hear, hear)—that it seemed to him to be the most dignified course to pass it over with con tempt—(Hear). He felt also, that it would not be altogether fair to take a printer in Dublin from his business, and order him to come over to attend at the Bar of the House, OR such.a ground as 'this. Mr. DALY . thought the House must agree with Lis Noble Friend, particularly when they saw that na one could treat the expressions mentioned with snore contempt than the Members to whom they were applied—( Hear, hear). Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said, that as he had his share of the abuse, he willingly contributed his tare of forifiveuess--(Laugitter). iir JOHN NEWPORT said, that seeing the con tzmpt with 'which the expressions were treated, he wt.uld be the last mien Au the House to magnify them into importance. He had no objection, there fore, to withslraw •his motion, though the House would lee; that in lyibgifig the subject under its no tice, be had cldne no more than his doty--(Hear). Sir GEORGE HILL said, he felt himself peculi arly calla on to make a few observations. Lord CASTLEREAGH apprehended there was no questitm before the House. Sir GEORGE HILL said, that he had only been in possession of the facts alluded to a few hours, and he thought it doe, not only to the connexion which he held with the persons referred to, but also to the esteem which, exclusive of all political feelings, he entertained for his Right Hon. Friend on the floor, to make a few observations. But if there was no ques t:on before the House, he supposed he could not be allowed to make them. Sir JOHN NEWPORT withdrew his Motion. • CHANCERY BILL. Sir GEORGE HILL presented a Petition from a large numbei of the Electors of Dublin against the Chancery NM He was aware that the object of the Petition could not be now obtained, because the Bill Lad gone to the other House. Mr. & PEEL regretted that he had not had an opportunity of opposing the Clause introduced into the Bill, which the House had pasied with unusual sapidity. He did most since, - -lament the act to which the House had beep -• • ti accede. , . Mr. PLUNKETT rose • -boo lamented that he had not had Ati • • •of giving his opinions upon 'the Bill, - I)pt e ight Honour able Gentleman had now an oppottunity of stating his opinions against it, he hoped be should, at the same time, be allowed to state his opinions in its fa vour--(dear, hear!)—The Petition was presented against a Bill which was not now before the House. - The SPEAKER did not conceive that the obser-, rations were disorderly. There lad been numerous instances of Petitions having been presented after the Ms had passed that House, and any question that arose out of the Petition was regularly before the House—(Hear!) Mr. PEEL only wished to express his regret, and record his opinions, on a subject which he had not an opportunity of opposing before. He waved the ivilege which it appeared he might have exercised. Mr.PLUNKEYI hoped nothing would occur in the other House to bring the subject again before that House; but if that should happen, he would then .state his reasons fir believing the Bill to be essential to justice—(Cheers). Sir GEORGE HILL was about to read an infi nitely grosser breach of privilege than that read by -the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir J. Newport) ; but he was called to order by the SPIAKER, the subject not arising from the Petition.—The Petition was laid COU the table. AUDIT OTTIOL Mr. H. G. BENNETT rose, in pursuance of notice, Ito move for printing such parts of the evidence as Irr as contained in the Minutes of the late Finance !Committee concerning the Audit Office, but which used not yet been submitted to the House. The Hon. Member stated, that in consequence of a Bill now before the House for abolishing, certain fees in the Audit Office, he felt it necessary to look into the evidence appended to the Report of the late Finance Committee, which related to the Audit Office, and' he fo un d these only the evidence of Mr. Harmon rnd Mr. Lushington ; and, upon further inquiry, he learned that a great mass of evidence taken upon this subject, and still preserved. in the Minutes of the Committee, was altogether omitted in the printeJ Repo' t. The evidence so omitted bad reference, he tlnderstooti, to certain disagreements which had 'Alien place between the Chairman of the Audit . . . . turd Serjeatti - Pratt!) Assistant 'Com litiiSlOneris •IlidoCd he. had Teamed, *no Verbs well atquainted with .the whole of the,depfuttnent, 4 that the suppressed evidence would open such a scene between the bead Coinnaissioner and the, other members of the Board—it would shew such a per petual system of squabbling, that it would be neces sary to taker measures for guarding against their re newal, and against the consequence of such scenes, which were highly detrimental to the public service —(Hear).—He could imagine that the reason of not printing the evidence, arose from this squabbling and discontent, but he would produce such a statement as would render the production of the evidence necessary: The Honourable Member proceeded to contend that it was the duty of the Finance Committee to have inquired into the fees in the Audit Office. But until he saw the evidence he could not kpow whether they had performed that duty or not. In 1810 a Bill was brought in by which two fees in that department were abolished ; but the fees which were paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer were still retained. He wished to know, therefore, if the Committee had in quired into this subject, and had ascertained this in consistency ? In order to know this, he wished to have the whole of the Report before him. ' He also wished to know whether the Committee had extended its in quiries to the expenses of the Audit Board? for he was prepared to shew that the business of that de partment might be performed by fewer hands than were at present employed. Another subject on which he wished to be inrormed, was that great job the Lisbon Commission? It seemed to be the intention of the Right Hon. Gentleman to re-establish that job in London, for he had lately set up a new establish ment in Great George-street. The Commission to which he alluded cost the country £11,600 a year.— It had already cost, on the whole, £70,000, and yet with this &tiara-horse power the Commission had audited no more than four or five accounts.—The Honourable Member referred to a Minute of the Treasury regarding Sir Robert Kennedy, which ob served upon the harsh and undeserved manner in which that meritorious Officer was treated by tbe Audit Board ; and at the same time, though he agreed in the propriety of the remarbs of the Trea sury on this subject, yet he had reason to believe that that Board interfered too frequenAy with the Audit Board. The Committee of 1810 had called the attention of the House to this interference on the part of the Treasury in making allowances and making charges, and in protecting Public Accoent ants who had met with the displeasure of the Board of Audit. In the year 1795,, the Marquis of Hast ings, then Lord Moira, had a military command, and on that occasion, that Noble Lord was entrusted with a sum of £20,000, which he had no doubt was applied to the purpose for which it was intended, but of this no account appeared anywhere; the Treasury ordered Lord Moira to repay the sum, and it was repaid, but the interest was not demanded, and thus 1.7000 was given up, to which the country had just as much right as to the £20,000. After some other observations iu support of his motion, the Honourable Gentleman concluded with repeating it in the terms above-mentioned. Mr. DAVIES GILBERT said, that as he was Chairman of the Committee alluded to, he confessed that a considerable mass of evidence was not printed in the Report; for the Committee were of opinion that the publication of it would do no good to the public service, while it would injure the feetings of individuals. The Report. remained in its original state, in the Office where it was thought that all the useful purposes to which it could be applied might be answered. In the.present case, however, he had no desire of withholding it from the House. The Honourable Member had said, that only four or five accounts were yet audited ; but though that might be true, still a great mass of accounts was in progress, and they would be brought forward in the course of next year. He had to observe, that the house in -Great George-street was taken for the purpose of re ceiving the documents connected with the public ac counts, which were extremely numerous. As to the number of persons employed in auditing those ac counts, he thought that, far from being diminished, if that number were still larger, it would benefit the public service. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de-, fended the conduct of the Board of Treasury in the appointment of persons to the Audit Board. In that respect they had exercised the best discretion; and one Gentleman in particular, whom they appointed, had been recommended to them for his integrity and diligence, and he was in all respects worthy of the office he filled. Mr. BENNETT said, he hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would have no objection to give the papers. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER re-' plied, that he had none.—The Motion was agreed to. . BARRACK EXPENDITURE. Mr. CALCRAFT said he rose, pursuant to the notice he had given the day.before, to move—" That the Comptroller of the Barrack Department be or dered to attend at the Bar of that House to-morrow, in order that he might be called upon to state by what authority he had commenced the building of Barracks- for the Horse Guards."—lt was necessary that this point should be ascertained, because he con ceived that a sum of £70,000 ought MX to be taken out of the public purse for such a purpose without the authority of Parliament. If, upon the examina• tion of this person, it should appear that he bad en tered on the work by order of the Board of Treasury, then it would be necessary to inquire what authority the Treasury had for giving that order? He then concluded with aulking his Motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did net think that there was any ground for mating a charge against the individual in question, who was a' most meritorious .servant of the Public, and who re ceived his authority for what he had done from the Treasury Board, which was afterwards to lay the ex penses.before Parliament. Mr. ABERCROMBY said, the only object of his Hon. Friend was to have a correct understanding on the question, by whose order the building was under taken. It now appeared, that the order had been given by the Treasury, and which they could not be justified in issuing, without firm obtaining the consent' of Parliament. It Was, indeed, much to be lamented, that after the immense sums expended in building of Barracks, the Public should now be called on to de fray-an expense of L:70,0110. Mr. IILJSKISSOI4 observed ) that they had only % . -ft dto the lease se > i .m . which existed in the Port "na.street Barracks within these ten years; when cif tnasstances put Oeur to the inconveniency of becom ing yearly tenants. The annual Estimates must be' before - the House, and as the expense was the same as before with the ultimate advantage pointed -out by his Right Hon. Friend, he could see no ground for complaint of any kind. Sir JOHN NEWPORT insisted, that the expense, before it was incurred, should first be submitted to Parliament. • -t Mr. WILSON (Member for London) felt himself bound to declare it as his opinion, that the Treasury could not be justified in ordering an expenditure of £70,000 for such an object as that of building a Bar rack, without the consent of Parliament ; and he must say that on this occasion the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not act with his usual discretion and judgment. Lord BINNING thought_the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been treated harshly by the Honour able Gentleman who spoke last, as well as the Gen tlemen opposite, and contended that no blame at tached to his Right Hon. Friend. Mr. MONCK said his Majesty's Ministers had by no means consulted economy in the contract. Mr. CALCRAFT did not mean to make a penal motion against the Gentleman at the head of the Barrack Department. His only object was to know by what authority this extravagant expenditure had 'taken place. He justified his own conduct in this bu iness..But after what had been said, he Should with draw his motion. HARBOUR OF PETERHeAD AND BANFF. Mr. W. SMITH called.the attention of the House to the great damage done to the works at Peterhead by the storm which took place in the month of Octo ber last, after the large sums Of money that had been expended in the erection of those works. He then dwelt on•the necessity of affording aid for the repair of the same, and moved an humble Address to his Majesty, requesting, 4 , that he would grant to the Commissioners of Highland Roads . and Bridges in Scotland, the sum of £3OOO towards repairing the damage done to the unfinished Harbour and Piers at Peterhead and at Banff, by a storm in October last." Mr. FERGUSON seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he was under the necessity of refusing his assent to this application, as it was not, fit thit the Public should defray the expenses of local improvements. Lord FIFE spoke in favour of the grant in question, on the ground of affording public relief, of en couraging a great nursery for seamen, and giving employment to numbers of poor persons who were now destitute of the means of support. The CHANCELLOR - of the EXCHEQUER moved the previous question, and the Address was negatived without a division. ALIEN BILL. On the motion for the third reading of this Bill, Mr. HOSHOUSE rose to state a few objections which he entertained to the passing of the Bill. Up, to the present time, the Noble Lord who introduced the measure had not stated any grounds for its enact. ment. The Noble Lord refused to give his reasons; he, like an ancient character, would not give reasons on compulsion, even though " they were as plentiful as blackberries." Although be (Mr. Hobhouse) knew the folly of contending against the influence of the Noble Lord, yet he would beg leave to state a few of his objections to the Bill. Three excuses had, been stated for the Bill. The Noble Lord had - said that it was made necessary in order to counteract .the secret machinations of Aliens. The Solicitor; General said that the Bill was aimed against a con spiracy of blacksmiths, and quoted Putfendorff and Grotius in support of his case. And the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster .had said, that it was necessary in order to counteract the effects of the Fiench Revolution, whiCh had not yet been eradi• cated— (Hear).—lt was monstrous to think that a free country should be reduced to the necessity of being governed by its fears. The Noble Lord had' said, that the Bill ought to be enacted first to secure' ourselves, and next as a security to 'foreign Powers. He (Mr. Hobhouse) was convinced that the list was the prevailing reason, if not the only one... In 1793, 'the first great change took place. Up to that time, front the period of the passing of Magna Charta, this country had been governed upon a system totally dif ferent from that which had been acted upon since thatiseriod. The Noble Lord had at that time said, that it was necessary to legislate against those who, from the secure station which they 'would find in Eneland, would have an opportunity of pursuing their revolutionary sthemes. Therefore the Alien Bill was enacted. In 1802 it was renewed, because it was declared to be necessary to legislate against the unstable government of Napoleon Bonaparte. In 1614 it was likewise alleged to be necessary to sup port the unstable government of Louis XVIIL In 1816 a similar argument was urged, and never did it happen on any of those occasions that our domestic policy required such a measure; Indeed, Mr. For had sufficiently shewn the folly of making any such allusion. Against this measure a virtuous, though ineffectual opposition had been made, and he trusted that the honest men who fought against it, and who were now no more, had gone to receive the teward of- their creditable labours , in " another and a better world l"—(Cries of Near, hear, hear). — In 1816 the Bill was necessary, according to the state ment of the Noble Lad, as long as the allied army remained in Frame. When the army withdrew, the Bill was necessary for a time, until we taw what would be the effect of the departure of the troops. This was the language of the Noble Lord at the time; for he (Mr. Hobhouse) had taken it down. It was. due to the Noble Lord's courage and experience, t say, that he (Lord Castlereagh) did not fear foreigrt Powers; but the Noble Lord wished the Bill to be enacted, in order that hemkt* be enabled to go Congress with a nation of stied in his pocket rath than a nation of freemen. 111. ' , recollected the time, when the Noble Lord went to the Continent, in 1813, and with what transports he had been everywhere hailed, as the harbinger of perpetual freedom; and in a few, a very few years, he (Mr. Hobhouse) :had heard those favourable sentiments on the Continent sadly reversed. When he (Mr. Hobhouse) had seen the Noble Lord at the grand re-anion of Sovereigns and Statesmen at Paris, and witnessed the urbanity, .the simplicity, and manliness'of character which dis tinguished the Noble Lord's telsol i b''‘deporttotnt,lte owned he felt a - pride, as an Engliehtasi to see Ms 1 4 4, " • k • • .1 ;• 1 ° •I .v ' country punted by Welt a tnati, and he Wat joked that he could siy 7 ...e The re is ;fie true *lli • sentative of gnglishmeo 4 --Bot in a short tame; he (Mr: Hobhouse) had brit too renal reason tO alter these feelings towards the Noble Lord, when hi (Lord Castlereagh) who had been before hailed as the saviour of liberty, was then only regarded as one Of the conspirators against the liberties of mankind-- Wear, hear): 7 -The people of the Continent saw in him the betrayer of the liberties of Genea—they saw in him, whose name was foremost when England was mentioned, the individual who was l e tt eggOont for all .- that had been done against the libertlet for all that had been done against the libehies of the Norwegians—and for all that had been done to endO the benefits which England had ConferresLoe ! e - before. Such was the man - whom Europitt •• looked upon with so much respect and • , and to whom the Address of Dryden to the Odin Monmouth, might have been suitably applied • " Thee, saviour, thee, a nation's vows confess, And, never satisfied with seeing, bless : Swift unbespoken pomps thy pow'r proclaim, And stanmfring babes are taught to lisp thy name r' , All the reasons formerly given for the Bill, exist no longer, and it was passed only for the purpose of en abling the Noble Lord to meet the Hardenbergs and Metternichs, as the representative of a nation bf slaves, instead of a nation of freemen. There was no necessity, he would repeat, for acts like the presents and they originated merely in a wish to carry on'the Idesigne of foreign Governments against unive freedom. In 1817, he (Mr. Hobhouse) had heard the Noble Lord state on the Continent, that England; - after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and the passing of the Alien Act, had conformed to that standard to which it was necessary she should be brought, before she could be admitted to a share in the political union of the European Powers. Ire (Mr. Hobhouse) had heard the Noble Lord make this statement.' He should not now he more particular s because the Congress might meet again, and there • was no knowing to what this tittle-tattle, if it got - abroad, might bring him. The Hon. Member then proceeded to state, that the Bill before the House s by preventing the admission of foteignets, would preclude the possibility of any complaints being heard against abuses that might exist in the Colonies. H'e instanced the case of Beuf, the printer, as an abuse of a serious nature, and one which, it waslikely s might be repeated. He said, that the conduct of Ministers with regard to the Queen, as connected with this Bill, almost justified the apprehension, that they did not mean to act justly towards her—(Order, order). He was not out of order. The Noble Losd who was most implicated in the observation, did not cry " Order !" and the interruption coming from the quarter it did, justified the remark that it was a ,great proof of the servitude of a country, when per sons werefound more ready to run into it, than others to impose it—(Hear, hear). But he perfectly agreed with the Westminster Petitioners, when they sup• posed the possibility of the case, that the present Bill would have the effect of interfering with her Majes ty's means of defence. The Honourable Member proceeded to animadvert against the Bill, as con• mars , to that spirit of clemency and hospitality, for which the people of England stood pre-eminent. The Duke of Marlborough protected strangers; Francis the Frst likewise protected Aliens; and even'Pope 'Alexander the Sixth, himself the worst of men, re fused to surrender up the foreigner—and even he a Turk—to whom he had afforded an asylum—(Hear). Persuaded; therefore, as he firmly was, that this mea. sure, if it passed into law, would procure for this country, instead of the character of the assertor and advocate of liberty in every part of the world, as well as at home, that of an accomplice in the subjugation of the rest of Europe; that instead of the charai• teristic of hospitality to strangers for wh;ch England had been eminent throughout the world, it would re. cal for us, to the minds of all Europe, the character which Horace gave of our barbarous forefathers in re mote ages— " Britannos bospitibus ferns !" and convinced that it would escite towards this Ina. tion,instead of admiration and confidence, hostility and distrust, he should move, as an Amendment-. " That instead of the word no*, this Bill be read the third time this day six months.' Mr. Alderman C. SMITH said, he was alwayi ready to support his Majesty's Ministers when , be thought them right. He was satisfied they were ea in this measure, under the comparative circumstances of this country and of Europe. Mr. MONCK strongly condemned the Bill. He considered it to grow out of a mysterious and un defined attempt to hunt down the liberal-minded jnen—the Whigs of the Continent—who were de serving of an asylum is this country. He was sorry to see a conspiracy formed against liberty—against all free - and popular institutions ; it was not for Great Britain, herself so long the seat of freedom s to check the spirit of the age, and oppose the ptss gress of public opinion. He looked on the Bill before the House as inhospitable to strangers, and as disgraceful to the name and character of England ; and he should therefore oppose this detesta ble and odious measure. Sir R. WILSON had heard no arguments to make ' him view this,Bill in a more favourable light than he formerly did. He was glad that the clauses which had been proposed were rejected, as he thought it better the Bill should pass with all its obnoxious ness about it. Of one thing- he was certain, that whilst it continued •to be the law of the land, the millions of the Continent would consider this country as at war with their liberties. . • Mr. HUME said a few words against the. Bill. A division then took place, when the numbers were—For the Bill, 69—Against it, 28—M aj ority, 46. The Bill was then read-the third timjelmil passed. The Howe resolved itself into a Committee on the Salt of Spirits' Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER laid on the table a Clause, of which he bad given notice y e sterd a y, whi c h would have the effect of preventing the sale of Spirits imported from Ireland of higher strength than tvrenty-tiro per cent. tinder proof, by Sykes's hydrometer. Mr. M. FITZGERALD considered tl‘e Clines inconsistent with the Aet of Union--inconsistent with the DIU *44 n d contradictory to the express•pledges given by the Chancellor et the Exchequer himself—(liter, !tear). • The CHANCELLOR of the EX.CHEQUE soid.l Amt. k was-not his intention to. press the Resolution at that moment, but he meant to introduce it into another Bill—ab er ).. Mr. W. SMITH. objected to iIIsIVIA Sbe, Claws- withdraw n , because h e t h oug h t th a t it would be p• vest s, would be weer proposed to be introduced htlhay Mr. NIABROWN.S.eMpideed *ft She Ofteame - ;~`j a N ~, IC 1 7 1,; • : • , ' ,~~ y y f C~