Star. — London, England, 1823-03-15 00:00:00

'Y uoe leave—than which nothing Was more common up to this day, nor more justifiable. He hoped he had said enough to shew that this power existed in the Crown, having been derived to it from a very ancient date. In UM, a -measure was attempted to be passed through Parliament to limit the exercise of the power, shewing that the power itself was recognised wen by - those who questioned its limits. He had thenonly , to show that the prerogative was necessary to the dignity of the Crown, to the safety of the sub rct, and to the security of the Constitution itself.— To illustrate this, he would suppose an Officer in the command of a regiment guilty of gross tyranny and acts-of cruelty towards his men. Did this preroga tive not exist, the Crown, unable to dismiss the Offi cer, Inust refer his conduct to a Court-Martial. This Court-Martial, composed of Officers in the daily practice of committing the same acts of tyranny and cruelty, of course would acquit him. Thus the sol- . (her would be compelled to submit in' silence to what; ! would render his life intolerable, or he would be: driven to acts of insubordination to which the most passive might be forced by a long course of oppres -5100. This would be the state to which thoie who, fought the battles of their country would be reduced. ' by those who made the walls of that House ring from: Tear to year with their tirades against opprvssion,, and their harangues about liberty. He would nest` suppose the case of an Officer guilty of some viola tion of the civil law. How would the Honouiabie Member proceed in that case ? Did he suppose that a constable armed with a stak, would be a match for the object of his search, backed by six or seven hun dred bayonets. lie would suppose any other case, in which an Officer had put himself in opposition to the dece ncies of civil l aw . civil life, but not answei able to the His Majesty being appealed to on this oc- ; casioa, wou ld natura ll y send hi m to be tried by a Court Martial. A corporate feeling would be excited and the Officer acquitted. Thus, then, it appeared that the civil past of the community were to have their tights violated, their persons insulted, and pro perty infringed by the system which was to be intro- doted by those who canons, professed themselves, on all oc-, , the champions of the People—(Hear, hear). lle would suppose another case in which the Crown maintenance of .thos, cnts,r4t • tiou icseV—(Hear. hhar,l h e ar). The Hon: MeMbei bad Said - 1114.1r did not wish tntake from the eimin :mating vibieh'iddesr •to its splendour. In reply to this, hitt:Ord' Palmer ston) would say, that he was onewho would not ac cept a prerogative shackled with such, conditions as., t h e Honourable Member proposed with regard to ' 1 this pi erogative. The prerogative was given, as was all prerogative, for the-benefit of thepeoPle—('Hear . Ian)). He wed not •go into any research -to prove that the prerogative in .question was• derived from the earliest practice of the Monarchy—he need only re- ' 'ler to the Statute Book of the Realm. It would there be found, that an Act passed in the beginning of the reign of Charles the Second, declared, " that the sti-.1 preme government of the Militia, and of the whole ofl the and sea forces, is, by . the laws of England, and ever was, the undoubted.right of. his Majesty ;" further went on to say, 64 that neither House of Parliament, nor both, can pretend to the same." This,. Pre considered, was , as clear as language could make the matter, that the power of commissioning and dis ;lacing had from ancient time been the right of the Cro.,vn. If the Honourable Member doubted such was the construction of the context of the Act he re ferred to, he would advert to an Act passed in the next year, which, in giving Lords Lieutenant of Counties the power to appoint officers, left it to the Crown. , to dismiss them. The way in which the Crown exer cised this prerogative of governing the Army, was by framing articles of wai'l ,r its regulation. Accord ingly, in the time of Elizabeth and of Charles the Second, articles of war were drawn up, all of which chewed the power of the Crown to dismiss officers. It appear ed, indeed, perfectly immaterial to this question v:hether the officers were dismissed by sentence of Court-Martial or otherwise, since Courts-Martial themselves derived all their power from theCrown,and the Crown could not give power which k had not itself. If, then, it was the right of the Crown from very early periods, they had only to look into the Mutiny Bill to see if anything tended to abrogate such a power, and if not, it must still remain. He would here take occa-ion to observe, that it was quite a-mistake to re present that Bill, as it frequently was in that House and elsewhere, as a Bill for the protection of the' Army, and the maintenance of its rights and privi leges. In his view, it was directly the reverse. It gave the Crown, with respect to the Army, what it did not possess before, summary modes of proceeding which were not possessed by the ordinary course of law. And, indeed, it did not require much argument to shew that it was absurd to resort to the ordinary process of law with men who were in rebellion against, the Laws and Government with arms in their hands. The Mutiny Bill set forth, that it was against the law to maintain a Standing Army in time of peace,: but nevertheless declared, that such being necessary, it was requisite they should devise some means .of bring ing to more speedy punishment than by - the forms of law those who belonged to it, guilty of any violation of law. The Bill then gave the King powef to esta blish Courts-Martial for the purposes of suniniary tri:il and punishment. Thus it appeared the Mutiny Act did not abridge the prerogative of the Crown.— It then went on to give power to the Crown to make Articles of %Var. But in no case did it speak of limi tations, further than to forbid the punishinent of death. being adjudged by Courts-Martial, excepting for cer: tain crimes specified in the Bill. lire Hon. Member had contended that dismissing was adding to the pu nishment awarded by a Court-Martial. This he Iliotd Palmerston) denied ; the King must have the power of dismissing his own servants in whatever depart-. ment of service, and the motive must remain in his: own breast. 'lt might be used as a punishment, and in the case quoted of Captain Coffin, possibly .the Crown was erroneously advised; but it was not to. be said. that the Admiralty dismissed that Officer. In many cases the exercise of the prerogative, by dis-. missal, in place of the sentence cif the Coutt)Martiat, was on the side of mercy. When the Hon. Member said that the 989 Officers who had been dismissed the service since 1795, bad been the victims of tyranny and oppression—[Colonel DAVIE;S here intimated that• he had said" injustice."j—Well, supposing it . to be injustice, and -that there were no tyranny and. oppression in injustice, still he denied that that was a just assertion. The majority of those Officers had been.dismissed on account of being absent without ._ :'.y.~~.~ should have infurtitatien•of tTeaton able-Otto 1n:1 - the per dia oT tottwof • its.loaitteta.. detorriewtv , • _not {be „Krr 04,4e..(1004 0 4t .tgwst staff' then to a .cout 0 /lentil fellesi-cOUspiiatcirs; or if nor the Co — wn bee foried to disclose that Irtftfitttetiekt bf' wise it might be able to save the country.'flethis .course were not pm sued,he should like to knOW"how the Ijonourable Member would proposerty seurove an Officer from a garrison town in rebellion,againsc Abe State ? The mistake of' th e Honourable' tette.: man was', - that he applied the piesent'statelrtliiitis' to the system which he proposed to establish; Whereas the obedience at present found in 'the Army was due ' to the existing laws by which that Army was . nowl governed. As in the case of Colonel Allen, whiih: had lately been discussed in that • Houst, Wholsted to be brought to a Court-Martial upon tertain eliaiget,• l and then complained that he was 'tried upon 'diffe rent charges. The next step in the regulation of the Army would be, that . Officers should only be.pied upon charges framed by themselves. 110 . 4 d. not r. stated his reasons for opposing the Hon..Gentliiparcs• motion. He again stated in short, that these *bie, because he thought it went to abridge.a most ancient and useful prerogative of the Crown ; and that the: system proposed to be substituted by the Honourable; Gentleman, was one which would tend to convert our Army into a corps of Mamelukcs, lb the annihi lation of the Constitution—Meer, hor,), . Mr. C. H. HUTCHINSON did not rise to dispute the prerogative of the Crown, which he thought was very properly placed in the hands' of 'the' Crown. Cut he could not go along with the Noble Lord in the defence he had made for an extended exercise of that power ; for to do that, he must suppose with the Noble Loud, a whole army of mutineers. The Noble Lord had employed himself in supposing cares for the purpose of answering them. He asked the Noble Lord how it happened, 'that the late Emperor of France, Napoleon, had never once exercised hispre rogative of dismissing his Officers without trial by a Court-Martial? He believed it had not happened in any one instance, and it would not be said that his troops were in that disorganized state represented by the Noble Lord. Even Louis the Eighteenth did not attempt to dismiss his Officers without trial by Court Martial, even when accused of treasonable practices. He agreed with the Noble. Lord, that the CtoWn' should possess this power for the benefit of' tbe ta; Lion ; but, at the same time,' it was liable to many abuses. An abuse he thought it was which had canted it to be exercised in the case of his gallant fl:iei d 1 (Sir It. Wilson)iast year. He was saus4kl. that .his gallant friend was the victim of mis4ite,.. -When he saw him covered with- military. dialnetiona front every country, and when be reflected elt hi , kaidbiftis and brilliant *services . in the 'ran k not iiiily4fOritiilt troops, but of other countries, - he4o3iUmseglelseve, that any Court-Martial would hay.e't4OUlssid And he was sure his Majesty's Milftteris'iribrt riot themselves aware of the facts qf:tho,7cike' when his dismissal.took place. lie was satisfinikfiat hitexer tions On the day in question had only tencltid to pre vent much confusion and bloodshed. And when the moment 'of calm arrived,' he did the'bilief that he would be restored to his - 1;104 . .4W ahae 'the' professiOn- would have to cougyatitiateitaiift vn :the recovery of so.gallant, huManece*perjeittect i and la lented-arr Officer. fie said this in the warMilt. : Pfbis feelings towards his lion, anifgaliaut•Pxiend;'sena be 'hoped, in. Aloing, so, be • hstdadliotbing calculated to wound the feelings of any - one. .. • • Mr:II:GURNEY said, Abe efllters,iitificitiMy being men of high family, Inid i torilkg.i.iilkoce, it was necessary that this prerogative Id•eaist, in order to restrain them. • Mr.'HUME was willing to give every attention to the cases put by the Noble 4°l\4_ 0ut,..)0 could not come to the same conclUsion as the Noble Lied.- He denied thaitheArmy was.his Majesty's, - bat .belonged to. and was paid by the State, antt:titerefbre he ought • not to dismiss Officers The Xing had no prerogatives except such as were given to him by Act of Parliament. The very circumstance of this Act being passed annually, shews that without it the Atm) , would cease, and the King could, there-, fore, have no pterogative over it. It the King's au thority were to ride over Acts olParliament, in what a state would they be ? Our ancestors were always very jealous of the maintenance of a standing army, however small it might be. He contended that it was an illegal act to dismiss an-Officer without a Court-Martial, for the Articles of War required that everything relating to the Army should be laid before that House ; but that was never done. There could be no law to enable the Sovereign to heap-injustice upon any man ; for the life of a man was as good to him as that of the whole community. In garrison they knew that Officers were beyond all. power, and therefore the Noble Lord's comparison must fall to the ground. He should support the motion of his gallant friend; andhoped that there would be a clause to that effect introduced into the Committee. Mr. W. WYNN said, it was the first time he had ever heard that the prerogative of the - Crown-existed . by Act of .Parliament. He wished the Hon. Member . would shew the Acts of Parliamentlgiving the crown the power . of making war i declating peace, or tatting or dissolving the Parliament. The King enjAyetrail his prerogatives excepi they tvere taken away by Act of Parliament. He &did not 'find it.intllefrlotiny_Aci that the King had the potter to discharge a private soldier, or to disband a tegimerit when in a state of mutiny ; but who.did doubt that thq Crown possessed the Rimer of dismissing hixhrft was a matter of safety 10 couniry to anon' the disinissal of yers ; :hut ,that was not to be considered as punishing him as the laws wculd do, were be brought to trial.. 'lt was wastirit the time di die House to argue against ; this, for he aid not believe that this country could i without' this power being vested in the ettnart. I Lord HOTHAM, iborigh a military man, mould; say that thi; prerogative was perfectly . legal; -arid, never was exercised with partialityind caprice. Be maid assure his Hon. Friend that he never regretted, the vote he gave on the qcrestion of.the_ dint:heal of a gallant Officer. If the Army were toiken tr l v Its dependence on the Crown there was ,knowit . as where the consequences would end—(iiatr, hear), Sir FRANCIS i3LAKE could not agree that his Majesty possessed no power over Superior Offiegrs, when Colonels'hail the power of redUciog charging non-commissioned officers, which be ,bad . . found beneficial to the service, iu the regiment to which he belonged. • e Arnettilminft wh's dittr•iiitttivtd 'tfidingt ilitetlble4.l64lMl eMtrltiltier. - • •" : •430ionel:11141046 .baidositer bad merr litelb to say: an answer to.,tifeliopje.44l, l •but he contended ..thap the Act of the 18th - anctilil . d.3 of Charles 11. bad no-.! 441iiitiPtetisgsitive of ' the Crown, the FttliiiiiflAettlolf4bevelerere Inch• an antiquatee prertgateire;••whrtbesertauth a hurry in passing tale' •Alutitts liillrytiebeottwhich.the Kiog womld hive nP! .. power over -she my at all? •He maintaitted,.!tbat.. whatever prirotative of the Crown was .in existence - fietlikeitte Mittrtiyiktt; he would say that it was an 11'ed 67114137th PlirtielehFehe Ninthly gill, which said - that no tater was toile panished but under the : sentence of a Court Those who maiutaitied ,the•contrary might as well have said that the King 'Might imprison,- or Othetivise punish any individual . without a 'trial. 'There was no Act of 'Parliament' against - dismissing Amy Offer of the Crown, such es, a , Secretary of:State but there was one against di s. ,missing an Officer. in the Army without a.Cssurt Mari, eta'. ..The Noble Lord would brand the Officers of ifie - Ariny as perjured traitors, and suppose the whole. Artitylcsebe•tatintedi- that 'nothing could keep it 'in. obedlettee except by the power of the Crown to dis;- miss any Officer at pleasure. The Army might say' to the Noble Lord, " Hr.evex defend me from msi friends, and I will defend myself from my enemies:, It was from a consfiousness of his .duty that lie brought this forward, being, as he knew, • With bine out of ten in•the House against hiM. Lord PALMERSTON - saw all the danger•which would result from depriving the Crown of the power of summary punishment. He denied that the Silh section said anything'against the'poWer of the trotin to dismiss Officers or others. •It Only,gave to 'thi Crown the power of bringing Officersmecisrbollar tial. The Crown might pronounceanythiog to be a , military offence, which was not so in a civil point of view ; and the Crown might punish such offence • otherwise than by life or limb. Ile denied that he had ever argued that the Army wasa vet of perjured traitors. Never was so unfounded-a charge; but all musses in what a state they would be, it the Officers of the Army were made independent oldie Crown. Mr..HITNIE wished to know if was a copy of the list Act ? Lord PALMERSTON said, it gauge thepower of adding hard labour 'to sentences of imprisonment passed on soldiers. • Mr. HUME wished to know, what was meant by' the absurdity of keeping up the balance Of . power 'in Europe, as 'spoken of by the Bill ? Lord PALNtERSTON said, that was' inserted in tbe reign of King William, when' it was generally weli.enderstood. The EiII-then went through the. Committee; and was otdertd to be reported on Monday. • NAvy 'Utile/att. • • The House then went into . a'dotntnittee Of - Siipply on the'Nary Estimates. Sir J. OSBORNE said,' the Committee having on a former evening voted Of, .Weat and Tear, he hod now to move the sums for the Timber, the Victual ling Hoard, Clerks, &c.' -k would be seen that con siderithle inductions hiidttlett effected in** different Offices, by the Navy being brought toLgreat perfed tion. -, There was- an additional charge for Greenwich Haapital,,-asulter for' the,Sveranntsation of Officers , 'diselfarged 'Crotit tie Dock-yards. There was a de erease of £216,864 fiems : the Estritilate ti Wit Pier, 'though there were 4000 men more "itnisldjesi thin , last year; and when the 1-louse heard that the-Navy was never in a More efficient state, it would be highly I satisfied. He then, moved £55,400,,, for the exrenses of the Admiralty. Office. Mr. HUME would rather intim seeirtwo or three millions taken from the - Army and gilded totheNav y. He was dispOSed to differ. Crotn the assertion that the reduction was owing to the efficient state of our Navy. He understood that the civil officers might have been reduced seven years ago. Therewas also a'great redUction in the rate of wages. 'ln this esti mate they had no credit given for old stores. Having congratulated the House on the reduction, be had to notice the difference of 2,0001. between the vote of the present and that of last year, but he had to object to the . Paymaster of Widows' Pensions and other Officers. The Pay Office itself might do all the duty of various offices which he had pointed out in a for mer Session. Many things, however, had been re duced by noticing them in the Committees, and therefore he should propose the reduction of this branch by the sum of 3,6501. There were. 8,000 marines, and when on board ship they were paid by the Navy Board, and yet the Paymaster of Ma rines hail 1,0001. a year and six clerks allowed to him. The whole establishment might be got rid of, and he should take the sense of the Committee on the subject. Sir O. CLERK thought there was no Officer in the public service bad. more duty or responsibility. than the Paymaster of Marinas. It was true that the duty aught be transferred to the Kay Pay Office, but that would be no saving, for then there mast be a similar Officer, with clerks under him. If the Hon. Member saw the quantity of correspondence every morning at the Office of the Paymaster of Marines, he would see also that be had not too many clerks. Te Paymaster of Widows' Pen sions paid some hundreds of tbnusands a year for the small sum of 4600 a year, with one clerk at A'Bo a year. This would stew that the Hon. Gentleman himself could not propose a more economical mode of doing the business of these two Offices. Mr. HUME said, the Treasurer oldie Navy was originally the Paymaster of WidoWs' Pensions, and mlghr be so again. He wWied.to have the Marine and the Army Barracks tinder the eon troul of the same Board. This need only to be attempted to be Worried into effect, and wills-great economy too. Sir J. I.)SBORNE said, that When the Navy Treasurer was' Paymaster of WidoWs' Pensions, they did not amount to 1-loth oT what they Were now ; and now too they were paid four times as.car in any,part of thecountrf they pleased. Si, J. YORKE thought the Secretary of the Admiralty ought to be the Payhutster orthe Widows' Pensions. Mr. CROK ER denied that the cfscespfthe ph, yrnes‘et orate Navy, and of Widows' Pensions, were ever joined in the sense intended by the Hon. bleniEler for Montrose. The Widows' 'Pensions was a ptivate 'charity ifftegetber. Very *stir oe his r coming into office, he had his sitteotion drawn , so the office of Paymaster of Marines. By habits of indoleipoy s itay Arleen/iglu ir e ritide a sineeuri ; lb ill-be-pledged fiint wi s e trot any , JJOlcerin . hiCklajtatea.oervice o( more vsr amiss( thoreonono eakal use, than the Paymaster of the Maritiesiff e ar, I n as). TT* Nyniistii df the Myr was'mliy Vided•Cteri 10 the T era-1 inffi• 4 Ckf bevy, .. otWu a t infietraisilillity ietraisilillity, but ,ilk •Psria• inast=rlsteitgavt secutity -to th e amount of ttventy the w . riiita. 'O(lE4 SI Ihrie and holintraille body 'roittentl' de s Oa * d**lolll4-Sktils. 'abe 'salary.. of that Olficer -hod .. . ~ . .. • l at eia,paid to the .. 'si . _lrlic .. srver and pv e r fe ar,4, the saving he Bird igertediti tie likrreili•-of the It esaa:(flear, hear).,- The„Matipe: Barrack:a- were :nee like lan, tUrrecks i f o e they weft the Head. tuners of the Corm-and could not be assail:- laiedlitiaoili► - With. tfii.'.irrny Bart:acts witliettreitoireoiy tem . Niaatpvit• V . Atirmeiliss:44 AiarY3viSiCeo Oiseneorctary to the lend for the lief df Offiters' 'Widows, be begged leave to sty a few words, as the ainoeut• of salary had been e bj e e t ed to.. I t wai l known that it was a Corporation whic h had the 'name . .• -. ' meat of these funds; And that C r otitiollttoo for Mini year' put. Indeed be believed thaw tliCitat X 7 1 4 ; .-o * - dfflDPVlliest The ry Secreta to the Admiralty Plienctry the Fund. The salary appointed in 1754 waVp2oo d year, an although the pensioners had increased from Zolato 11000; the pensions from aeSOOO to X 150,000 a - year. and the carrespgodenfe.irortt 309 or 400 letters to 30,0000 r 46,000—f0r so man be believed he received annu -1 ally—there had been n o i ncrease w h at e ver in the salary— { clear, heir i)--thi t tbese grauads be thong* that grruAjection could be fairly prgfd ...zaiest it. tie contended, Ara, that the Pay 'Master of the Maridef-was a mint effielent liidlleassary (Miter; mein, that tbe tiOnVet . A ollo, wits:noetootoombilliethe Paynamoir of. Widows' Pensions, and consequently that the arrangenmet of 1819 ought not to bc.aliakdasaed..- • - or Sir F. MI 3I A NAY was against the ieduction . proposed by the , ltinourabie Atetn,)er fof Montrose. 'He spiike in retro:kr of' the Widows of Assiscatitlittrgeons ill the Navy ; • but • wben'be advocated their cause with the Secretary to the Admiralty..* answer was.—". Sir„. take .no trouble about it : ;realer men Ilion you have thought'of it." "If he din notgeta satisfattory answer from the Adintrioltr wiihht-a 'proper' tithe,•beshosild move Isis Address to his Majesty, that the.:Wilows of Augstoste &nem, should he * placed upon the Widows Pepsine List. He shoidd move, that tOOO/. be added to the Mr.IMO C IfIEN slid, it was irregular to add tntfie Resolut4oe. Sir J. YOR KR said,. that if he tin:keit the 'Estiniates -too low, he conceived he had a right to move an addition. Mr. BROGQRN again 'said, :that ;Mush the Committee might diminish the sum, it could not add to it, without a fresh communication from the Crown. . Sir F. 031 MA NFX-thought, if the Menil4r for Aberdeen-toe ceeded in taking off 20001. he might be allowed to replace 10001. • Sir J. YOILKR contended, that if the sum appeared tcrlaim too be Baas ai liberty to move an addition. "•• Mr. CROK,BR seld,•tho Boa. Atember hact•tvenevabered ' Nogdailhat itc (rlr. Croker) bad not used, and had forgot others that he (Mr. Cooker) had used. Sit R.0311 1 11A wohid nut put hjs Parliamentary el:pa Oenc,r - inApikaiiiou to thpt of the Seeretar/ of the Admiralty, but he would' put -his veracity. He hid been told by the Score • tarfogthe'Adnilrlig that greater tarn than he (Sir F. Ortraa : siey) had considered thogaubject. Ile wished for five Lords of. the Admiralty,and on that at eentnit he Indproposed the additional aunt. Mr. Rl.LlVRabOuldOoedsliftb his Hon. Friend (Mr. Raise), should be persist is his Itesolutism. He felt it Isis duty to support any reduction that would not•hnerfereWith the publfc service. Mr. HUM R stated, that if the subject should' be allowed tO go to i Committee, he should withdraw-the motion. Sir J. COFFIN said, that in the eventbf a War, If therewere no Navy, no Member of that House woild iitquiet in his war. Attempts were constantly making to grind dowttAbe Navy. Sir J. I Of: homed the gallant Admiral wulnd make the anien.le Imoorolde, and retract what he had said. _ ____ Mr. HUM declincd to rire , s a division, and the Resolution was carried.—The following sums were then voted: X;.,^_,4:;4, for the Navy P.ty Office. 64,519, for the salaries and contingencies of the Navy Office. .18,657, for Vie expense of Deptford Yard; ta,:so9, for Wo o lwich Yird. 24,504, tier the expense: of Chathani Dock. 16,1:,4, for Sheerness Yard. • :Sti,sll, for Portsmouth Yard. 30,905, for Plymouth Yard. 8,860, fur the Out-ports. .505,500, for the building and repairs of Ships. 40,000, for Pilots. 52,108, for Officers in Foreign Yards. 64107,g - or the Victual!lig 'Office. • • 51,331, for the Medical Establishment. 6,227, for. the Royal Naval College. 164;484, for Ship-keepers and Ships in Ordinary. 933,400, for half-pay of Naval Officers. 137,735, for Superannuation- of Chaplains and others. 1,590, nOuttty for Chaplains. . 7,000, for Widows and Orphans of Officers on the Com. passionate List. 100,000, to make good the deficiency inthe. Funds for the re lief of the Widows of (Kficers in the Royal Navy. 300,00, for the Out-pensiorrtrs of Greenwich Hoopla/. 176,449, for Superannuation half-pay. 20,000, for the building of ships of war in India. 205,000, for provkions for Troops on Foreign Service. 184,300, for the Transport Service. . 124,000, for improvements in the Dock Yards.. The' House then resumed, and the Report whs ordeMit to* received on Monday. • NATioNAL DEBT REDUCTION BILL. The CIIA of the EXCHEQUER nibied the 'third 'ridding of the National Debt Redaction 13i13. . Aftiv some observations from Mr.:Bessri and Lord A. HA.. )noon, the third reading was postponed to Monday. WAYS AND MEANS. The House then went into the Comsat - tee of Ways, apd Means. On the motion of theC 11 A NCELLOR of theEXCHEQUER the following sums were voted 059,199—A39,000 to cupply the deficiency on the Irish Con solidated Fund for the year 1817, and the remainder foe the benefit of the Poorer Clergy of the Church of Scotl l ind. X 7,800,000, being the amount of monies in hand to toddy eie. Lain grants of former years. - 44,800,000 to be paid out of the Exchequer to the Trustee' of Naval and 31ilitary Superannuation. Also the amount of dtg. Unclaimed Dividends and Lottery Prizes in the hands of the Bank, exceeding 4190,000.—RepOrt on _Monday. . The It iih Yeomanry Bill was read a third time, and passed.— Mjourned to Monday. . It is January BENTIIMII, we believe, who proposes that no man shall be alitrwed to vote for lf. P.'. who Waist able to rod sad write. We were happy to have unThursday to annotmce that the ' principles of this great Reformer had found their way even bid* Army of the Faith. Ho man, we understand ; Is heneefirdt to be an officer of that distinguished body who is ignorant of thee ' two fundamental arts of life; and tist officers who have not yet ' learnt their A. a C. are to go back to the ranks till they base at ' least got the horn-book by heart. We congratulate the world on this improvement, as thesevaliant soldiers do now stands chance of learning on what account they are murdering their fellow-citizens, and laying waste their native land. We understand also, from this fact, why. these bands bppoie the Constitution ; it "deprives them of - their rights, by having adopted the prindille of the en. lightened Reformer we have mentioned above. ,, ~ I'oBl'4lollBE' DUTY.---RAMSDEN AND SHARMAN ' V. HODGKINSON.—This was an action n 1 debt, tried at NVestrninster before Lord Chief Justice AroOrr, 'at die: Sit. tiags after last Trinity Term, and a verdict was found for thq plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Cote t upon the foll'oning ' case. The plaintiffs were the Farmers and Contattois of the Post-Horse Duties for London and Westminster. rk g , A t ka& ant was a Livery-stable-keeper, and licensed to let horses to hire. On the 2d df April, 1822, the Attendant let a saddle-horse to go 'to Brentford add back, and charged a specific sues, viz. TOG. 6d. for the whole distance, and not after the usual, or an y certa i n rate per mile—that th:defendanc was assessed foe the said hone, under the Assessed Tax Acts, and paid the rat for -the same— that the defendant did not enter the said hiring in his Stamp of; Tice weekly account, or pay to the plaintiffs a fourth port of the 'said specific sum so received.' That on the 5d of April, .1844,. • the defendant let to hire another saddle-horse by the day, for one day, - the distance for which the horse was- to go net- beissg,, at Achim* of hiring, ascertained—that the defendant alai paid the Assessed Tax for this borne, that the defendant did not enter • the said !sit-mentioned hiring in Ms SranerOfficeoreeklyisceeinne,, or pay the plaintiffs the day duty of Is. Dd. for she same, That op the sth April, he defendant lei to hire another saddk;h atae by the day, for one day, the distance at the tinie,of hiring bping - ascertained to be 21, miles, that the defendant . also paid the 4 9 - sessed 'fax-for the said hors:, but he 'did Hirt enter the said 'last mentlohed biribg in his Stamp Office Weelltaccown, or pay to 'the plaintiffs the day of one. peenttahneuly per mile, Th at the whole of the duty payable to thep!Ontiffs,Fn the above three , hlr:ngs, amounted to 7s. -Middle questidn for the opinion of the Cotet was,. Whether the defendain • tiecqine chargeable With I the said debt of 7s..oratij part•theieof,s-or whether the Aidessict Ta% paid for dm. s t aid hordes, as daddle.htatses, eirepted the de.. 1 • Andean from the payanamitifJite sl i is.i•llliwie Thity .l9e i 4 9 le,ri:cseiereth b 1 ,het pre.„ssis,*;nra . , I(. the- Cijuil should be of erihion .ttit the deTegitileif 'did so - becothe !Itafgeable' fifth the , *hole of the add debt. of %is . ; Clio the veisijetfwart a s a w . . mot lit'the'•Ctirt woo, of opinion _the dainilait% did not beams ehatgOilt.siith",the said ate, th en -tineVerdicp.was_Ao hip.:a k e . i 1 -*de, mull nozasuit tiatereLL On the 19th pl...ysAnivrtss dog o,,,cdarkettjet;cllatinetl,.wheirthefokkeiving order was ?tilde: % 4-- itticl - •ittlf•ni-it aYeit • the Qcta .bf dit'Paificiiiiiii , iit;tle • baii,ea , Ntreta ohtT44oth* foarag Ow a hind •kwassigaithe,4o.. Upon hearing Ain liaylty,ef CutauseLjetah a pl a u lt uu t am t A i r. I Ad 4 o l oitlixot cg 2 4 40 Mr. the.dqfg?dant, it is tacks-et! that Jud •- ' meanie cattied tottki;plfinties t • , - - •- - • .3.' • • - • - ' ''' m -.-• '-.);. ~ - J