The Sun. — London, England, 1828-06-24 00:00:00

do respecting manumission. They ought to recol lect, that the Court of Policy of Demerara had peti tioned against that part of the Order in Council; the Privy Council had not yet decided upon : that petition, which of course still remained under the consideration of his Majesty's Governmeutasltwas no doubt intended to carry that principle into 'pxe cution : still, like every part of so complicated a consideration, the mode of acting upon it must be regulated by contingent circumstances. They Must bear in mind, that within the last year there ; had been no less than four gentlemen in the soffiee of Secretary for the . Colonies, and really. it was' not possible, without very deliberate consideration, to come to a safe conclusion upon a pied of this kind; for himself he could own, that up, to,tlais day the Government had not made up their minds as:to the mode of giving a practical applicatido to the prin ciple which, he again admitted, they were bound to see executed. As to the general state of the slave trade, notwithstanding the treaties for its liinitation or suppression which Great Britain had already made with every maritime state in the world, it was melancholy to be obliged to admit that it was still carried on to a great and lamentable extent. — (Hear.) —He adverted to this fact, to show all the difficulties which surrounded this subject. Eng land bad spared no pains nor expence to arrange these treaties; yet he was afraid it would appear that at this very moment more slaves were berme away from Africa (not, howeVer, into British colo nies), than were exported from thence before the abolition. Earl GROSVENOR felt great satisfaction atithe Noble Duke's explanation, that the principle of ;the Orders in Council would be strictly enforced, and the delay only attributable to the consideration of the best mode of putting it properly in practice. Lord CALTHORPE regretted that he could not concur in this expression of satisfaction; for, instead of beirq disposed to look with confidence towards the Colonies for a. redress of wrongs, he saw 'lathing in their conduct which did not lead to an opposite inference. The Noble Lord then referred to the last Jamaica Bill , and denied that it bore elle-- c haracter ascribed to it by the Noble Duke opposite. He contended that the baneful effect of slavery was in no case so remarkable as in these repeated asper sions of the deliberate decision of Parliament, calmly and unanimously obtained. And who were the parties who denounced the British Legislature in its attempts really to save the Colonies themselves from the blind fallacy of their own views? Why, they were planters, who depended for subsistence upon the admission of their sugars into the British market, on terms which they would be unable to obtain in any other part of the world-persons who solely. depended for their safety in the presence of the British troops. It was only necessary to with draw the latter, if they wished to have these pe4le overrun by the immense native population that sur rounded them, The Duke of WELLINGTON had not expressed satisfaction so much at what had been practimlly done, as at the principle being acted on which was involved in their interference, as well by the char tered colonies as by those under the direction of the Government at home, Indeed, he drew grounds of support out of the opposition which some of ,the colonies had given in point of fact; for when he caw the principle admitted, in spite of this violence, ar.d when he knew it would he found practically advan tageous, he had the stronger hope of its eventual adoption, when it was found to work without the apprehended mischief. It was the duty of the Go vernment to carry the measure peaceably, and with out resorting to any of these harsh and uncalled for measures to which allusion had been made. Lord CALTHORPE said, that there was a dif ference between applying the force they could wield on such an occasion, and entirely abstaining from active measures against those who had meditated such a spirit of resistance. The Duke of WELLINGTON was in the recol lection of the House, whether the Noble L ord' did n ot sitvgest the withdrawa l o f the troops, and awn dolling: the unfortunate inhabitants to the violence of the slave population, Lord CALTHORPE begged to say, that lie did nut xecommend any such measure. Lord SEAFORD professed himself favourable, and strongly favourable, to the final aliclition of sla very. The soundest doctrine, as it appeared to him, upon which the extinction of slavery could be conducted was that laid down in the report of the African Institution in 1815. It was stated in that report that emancipation should be effected, not pre cipitately, by the operation of positive law, but by the same gradual meanie which had formerly put an end to slavery in this and the other cottntries of Europe—by the growth of opiiiion, by the encou ragement of voluntary manumission,--in short, by the influence of measures which would make not the slaves but the masters the instruments of emaneipa tion. Ile concurred in this v iew of the African Sur ciety, and looked forward to the change which they were all desirous of promotingaeetrathe improve ment in morals and manners of the whole population, and especially in the condition of the The sentiments expressed of the African Institutioo I,y Mr. Canning, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Wilberforce, were those which constituted his views with respect to the emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies]. TO any measures in ronfor linty with those principles he would give his eoeci;,e..! and zealous support : but he couicl not concur in the principle of compulsory manumission, nor could lie help regretting that Government had dopp.rted in this respect from the sound principles and doctrinea laid down by the African Institution. To depart from voluntary manumission was to abandon the only system which history had proved to be practicable. With respect to all the other measures they hail his concurrence, though he regretted that they had riot met with a more fraourable reception from the colt).- ;nes themselves. But lie believed that the indispo sition en the part of the colonies seas treated with too much contempt. After all, much bad bean prac tically done, in proof of which he might instance the consolidated act passed by the assembly of Jamaica; and there certainly was no cause to be dissatisfied. With the conduct adopted either by the colonial legis latures, or by the masters of slaves, towards th e church establishment in the colonies. On the con, trarv, they had concurred warmly in its adoption and - support, and he would appeal to the Noble Earl (Bathurst), who had best reason to know whether th e re was airy cause to be dissatio fi ed with the con duct upen that point, which was in hie estimation the most important of all. Earl BATHURST . bore testimony to the far veurable disposition manifested by the colonial legis latures and the masters of slaves towards the Church Establishment, and referred to the report of the Bishop of Barbadoes, who, after his progress throuf,sh the different islands, had mentioned it as the uni form desire of each to assist in the furtherance of such an object. • He could not avoid alluding to what had fallen from his Noble Friend against the measure of manumission, Parliament was pledged to put an end to slavery. It was also bound to re gard the property of slave owners, and every one must see that there was great practice' difficulty in the attempt to reconcile these two objects. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table, Lord CALTFIORPE. presented petitions from Birmingham, Wednesbury,and Stourbridge, in favour of the gradual abolition of Slavery :in the West Indies. The Bills before the house were then forwarded in their respective stages, and the House adjourned tit a Quarter before Eight. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 23. The SPEAKER took the Chair this' day at five minutes after four o'clock. Mr. JOHNiON brought up certain papers from the office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. WARD presented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Corporation, and other citizens of London, complaining of the abuses in the Secondari.?s' dice. After a few words from Mr. Alderman WOOD and Alderman WAITHMAN, the petition was ordered to be printed. Colonel DAVIES presented a petition from the glove manufacturers of Worcester, complaining of the dcpressed state of the glove trade. Mr. ROBINSON ga*e Notice that it was his in tention to call klre*ienp l on of the Muse to the , de pressed state - of the &re-trade on "Thursday next. Sir J. BRYDGES presented a petition from Sir Harcourt Lees,-of Dublin, against any further con cessions to the ROManCutholics. The petition was read at full length, and after a few words from Mr. Larikb was ordered to be printed. Colonel TALBOT presented a petition from the Royal Irish' Mining Company, against the importa tion of Foreign Lead. SLAVERY. Sir W. ROWLEY presented two petitions from Suffolk for the abolition of Slavery. Mr. PENDARVES presented a similar petition from Penzance. Mr. SPOTTISWODE presented a similar pe tion from Salto}}. Sir RICHARD VIVIAN moved for returns of the regulations in foreign ports on the import and export of goods, and of the amount of duties pay able on them. _ _ ('ol. CHICHESTER presented a petition from Wexford, respecting; the police establishment of Ireland. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR presented a petition from Mr. Donkin, the Clerk of the County Court at Dur ham, against the Small Debts' Bill. CLAIMS ON THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from Henry Caselee, complaining of the misappropriation of the money granted by the French Government, for the compensation of the claims of British subjects on the French Government.—Ordered to be printed. Sir J. ASTLEYpresented a petition from a Co roner in Wiltshire, praying that additional allowance might be granted to Coroners. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN presented a peti tion from the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, against the Additional Churches Bill. Mr. LITTLETON said that the Commissioners for building churches had conducted themselves with so mush discretion that he wai disposed to be lieve every thing in their ftivonr, but thought they ought to allow more time to enable parishes to be some better acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. Mr. WESTERN presented a petition from the inhabitants of Chelmsford, against Negro Slavery ; also similar petitions from Romford and ether places in Essex. Lord BELGRAVE presented a similar petition from Chester. Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from a person named Buckland, who claimed to be a _free vintner, against certain clauses in the Licenses Bill. Sir ROBERT WILSON presented a petitiot from the inhabitants of St. George's parish, Cam berwell, against the Church Building Act. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that when a million was originally granted for this purpose, it was understood that the public were to be called on for nothing additional. There was no time to consider of the matter, and therefore time ought to be given. Mr. W. SMITH said, that he was instructed alsci to press for further time before the passing of this Bill. He thought the Bill should not be suffer ed to proceed further this Session. Mr. MARSHALL also objected to passing the Bill so. hastily through the House. The petition was ordered to be printed. Mr. MARSHALL presented a petition from the Dissenters of a Church in Leeds, against the burn ing of Hindoo widows. Si G. IVIURRAY brought up papers relative to the proceedings of the Commissioners appointed for the amelioration of the slave population of the West Indies. Mr. BERNAL presented a. petition from Mr. G. Newland, complaining that the Commissioners for liquidating the claims on the French Government had allowed him interest upon his claim of 80,000/., at the rate of 3 per cent. only, whilst the other claimants had received at the rate of 5 per cent., and praying for relief. Mr. Newland claimed five per cent. as the proper rate of interest on his de mand ; but the Commissioners would only agree to pay him three per cent. A gentleman named Sim cox, as the representative of Messrs. Whetland and Son, appealed under similar circumstances to the Privy Council, but the appeal so brought was eventually withdrawn. In June, 1821, a positive asiurgnee was Oven to Mr. Simcox, that his case would he decided, in conformity with that of Messrs. Boyd and Co., which was then pending before the Privy Council. In consequence of this intimation, Mr. Newland suffered the time for final appeal, uf t ieh, by the Act of Parliament, was limited to three months, from the time of the Commissioners' decision to expire, and awaited the decision in the case of Boyd and Co., which was not pronounced until five years after, and it was then awarded that on Boyd ;rid Co.'s claim, interest at the rate of five per cent. diGuld be paid. The same was done in the case of Mr. Sime4; and Mr. Newland now applied for an equal rate of int:Teri', The petitioner contended, as he (Mr. Bernal) thought justly, that the principle which regulated the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Boyd and and which secured to those parties five vet. cent. interest, applied also to his case. If it were now 4Fgued, that Mr. Newland's having suffered the three moths ; the period specified by the Act of Parliament, to expn.e, was a fatal objection to his claim, he (Mr. Bernal) would say in answer, that claims to the amount of 401,0001. had been settled long after the arhitration of 1815; and, therefore, reasoning by analogy, there could be no just or valid e;:.Us to refuse to settle the demand of Mr. Newland. The petition wa-rthen brought up. The CHANCEP.OR of the EXCHEQUER felt it quite impossible to give to the lion. Gentle man opposite any assurance, on the put either of iff%?. Government, oe of the Lords of the Treasury, that they would take this business into their betide. The eircurnienr•es were by no means peculiar to the transaction which dill Hon. Gentleman had intro duced.' Ever since the ri. - A.o:tfent that it had been .made known that there was a surpin2 of funds, many claims, under the head of No. 7, were made in con formity with the convention of 1813 and 1814, individu4.l4 endeavoured to bring themselves within the meaning of (he law in order that they might partake of that surplus on whieh they thought they 1 14 a sort of claim. He was not therefore, to citi with one particular case, but to be guided by the gene rule by which all such cases were governed. Mr. Ne#Jand's claim came, in the first instance, before the Comatistioners, mid it was not ,n ow; _ i d„ fie then went before time Privy Council, who decided in favour of his cl a i m , a n d i r e ferr“l it back. Th e Commissioners then g ave the amount of hi s doirn, with three per pent. interest. Mr. New land w as not satisfied with this second award of the Conuniszioners, and made a second appeal to the Privy Privy Council, on this second appeal, affirmed the ()leis* of the Commissioner 3, wall some variance, founded on the value o f a „. sigoatt in 179:3. It was well known that the rte of interest pkii4. on these claims was different, and depended on the naPnre of the claims. One class of claimants was to receive J, another 4, and a third class, whose claims were on account of what was called " moveable property," 3 per petit.. Npw it was adjudged that the claitas of Mr. ?.;ewl r an d , were on account of moveable property, and, in conse quence, only 3 per cent. was allowed. The peti tioner said, that he relied upon the case of Mr. Simcox, which depended upon the case of Mr. Boyd; and he considered, as the Privy Council had decided in the case of Mr. Boyd that 5 per cent.. should be paid, and as Mr. Simcox, under that dem sion' had received the like interest, that he also was entitled to a similar rate. ' That, he believed, was the argument. Mr. 13ERNAL—The parties were to receive a rate of interest according to the precise nature of their respective claims. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER continued.—ln looking to this reasoning, however, it was to be observed that Boyd and Co. had two suits before the Privy Council. In one of them five per cent. was awarded, and in the other, "Boyd and Co..v. Demontage " the Privy Council decided that three per cent. only should be paid, and he believed it was on this latter case that the refusal to give Mr. Newland five per cent. proceeded, it being a case of moveable property. He must say, that it was very inconvenient to discuss questiOns of this sort inci dentally. It was impossible to say when thus intro dUeed in the absenee'of necessary information, to what extent they might be carried. Mr. BERNAL assured the Right Hon. Gentle • man, that he believed the statements contained in the petition to be perfectly just. Mr. LITTLETON said, the case of Mr. Simcox was a very peculiar one. From this statement it clearly appeared that the French Government was positively engaged to pay five per cent. on claims similar to those of Mr. Sirncox and Mr. Newland. Sir G. PHILIPS said, 'that in one case a claim on the French Government was sent from Manches ter to a banker at Paris, who neglected to send it in within the prescribed time. He wished to know whether a claimant, under such circumstances, was shut out from all redress ? _ Mr. BRIGHT said, there appeared to him to be some claims which were extremely equitable, though they might not be strictly legal. At first, the French prisoners in this country were supported by the French Government. The expence, however, being found to be very great, the French Government re fused to continue to 'support these prisoners ; and, after some arrangements which took Awe between this country and France, the English Government took the support of the French prisoners upon them. selves. But in the interval between the refusal of the French Government to support their prisoners and the English Government undertaking it, the contractors continued to support those prisoners on the faith that they should be reimbursed. These gentlemen claimed under the 'treaty, and had their claims paid them to the amount of more than 50 per cent. On application for the remainder they were told that the money was exhausted, andin con sequence of this the contractors became bankrupts. Now this case had been stated to him on very good authority, and if it were true, or any thing like true, he did think that Government ought to at tend to it. Mr. S. RICE thought the subject well worthy the attention of Government, especially after the declaration of the late Lord Londonderry that such claims should be Considered. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the discussion of that night had proved that this was a contest between individuals to get out of the conditions laid down by the treaty. With re spect to the case stated by the Hon. Member for Wootton Basset, and by the Hon. Member for Li merick,—however hard it might be that the neglect of an agent, the delay of lodging. an appeal, or the unavoidable delay arising from proanring necessary documents, should be fatal to the claim of any person,—yet the conditions were strictly limited by the treaty, and thole conditions must be abided by. Mr. BER.NAL could not suffer the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman to pass without reply. The Right Hon. Gentleman had acknowledged the hardship of claims being shut out from the neglect of agents, and from suffering the time for appeal to pass by. But what had the Right Hon. Gentleman said in answer to his (Mr. Bernal's) statement ? He had stated that, by a printed paper, referring to the 9th article of the Treaty, it bad been held out that the claims of certain persons, though they might not be strictly legal, would be equally considered by the Treasury. Be this true or false, it ought to be inquired into. • • Sir G. PHILIPS said; the French papers were already full of complaints of the unfair conduct of the British Government ; or, as they termed it, of the fraud which the British. Government had committed upon that of France, in applying this money to a purpose essentially different from that for which it had been given. Was such an appropriation of mo ney given by one Government to another to be justi fied upon a technical objection ? The declaration of Lord Londonderry in 1819 ought to be attended to by the present Government. When he (Sir G. Philips) and the Hon. Member for Knaresborough brbught forward this subject, the language of Lord Londonderry was very different from that of the Right. Hon. Gentleman. Lord Londonderry said that " he Went along with the Right Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Tierney) in thinking, that if there should be any surplus, those claimants to whom he had alluded should be added to the others, and that a reversionary interest-should be secured to them." Mr. BRIGHT said that the parties to whom he had alluded claimed under the treaty of Paris. Mr. SEYMOUR said, that as the money had been received for the purpose of satisfying the claims of Bri tish subjects who had been robbed (for he could call it nothing else) by the French Government of those days, he did think that the claims had been refused on very extraordinary grounds. His father was robbed of his property in 1790, and whether the Government was constituted then, or' in 1793, it was no matter. Where there was a jut claim, it ought to be , attended to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there were so many persons who fancied they had claims, that if the money were ten times as great as it was, it would be insufficient to satisfy them all. Mr. S. RICE perceived that this money had merely been advanced to the Woods and Forests by way of loan : how, then, was it to be.applied when repaid ? Surely the most rational way would be, to apply it to the liquidation of those claims founded in truth and reason, and which were excluded merely by a technical objection. Mr. HERRINS said that the Hon. Gentleman who had referred to the language of Lord London (leery, appeared to think that the declaration made by that Noble Lord had been departed from: contrary was the case. Extension had been made to all those who, under the strict letter of the Act, could not come in. Mr. SEYMOUR would give up his claim if the money were applied to the reluction of the national debt, but not if it were to be devoted to any other purpose.—(Hear, hear.)—He should always consi der that Government owed him 3,0001. Lord J. RUSSELL confessed that it did app" . to him that farther time ought to be allowed as long as any surplus remained. No claim ought .to be stopped until the money was exhausted. Sir G. PHILIPS was sure that the language of ' Lord Londonderry, as he. interpreted it, conveyed this meaning,—that further time should be allowed until all claims were satisfied. But lie wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) of what nature the notice was, that farther time would be allowed Mr. BERRIES conld not tell the precise nature of the notice ; but he believed that ample publicity had been given to it. Sir Q. PHILIPS doubted the ample publicity of the notice, because the parties of whom he spoke knew nothing about it. The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. COURTENAY brought up a Bill for amending the Act relating to Pilots' Lights and Pilot age.—Read the first time. To be read the second time on Thursday, and to be printed. Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a petition from Boston, praying for protection for British Wool. — To be printed. Mr. PEEL moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Church Briefs Bill. The Bill was rend a third time and passed. The House resumed, and the Bill was passed. SMALL DEBTS' BILL. Mr. PEEL n►oved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Small Debts' liticovery Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that no Bill had ever given him more trouble, and he had entertained hopes of being able to carry it through Parliament during the present Session, but he was prevented by difficulties which, however, were totally uncon 'fleeted with the principles of the Bill. Those who had read the Bill must be convinced that its pro visions were not of a nature to obstruct its progress through the House, for the Bill had been framed by Gentlemen of experience. The difficulty of pass ing it arose from .the claims to compensation, pre ferred by the o ffi cers, whose receipts would be di.: minished were the Bill to pass into a law. He had no objection to this principle, hut a Commission had been appointed to consider the ,practice of the superior Courts of Law, which might .suggest ma terial alterations affecting the interests of individuals. Nothing was so prejudicial to the public as making a par list-compensation to officers for the reduction of fees, for this often increased the fees of other officers'; and when they claimed a compensation upon being reduced, that compensation was calculated upon their in• creased receipts. Me objected to giving any partial compensation to persona holding patent offices, until the whole subject was in a condition to be settled. It would be more advautagebus to the public to pur chase out such officers altogether. This was the only difficulty- that obstructed the passage of the Bill. Sir J. NEWPORT concurred in the principle laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman. Lord ALTHORP said, that the Bill proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman was a great improve ment upon that formerly introduced. After a few words from Mr. HuME and Mr. Se cretary PEEL, Mr. T. B. LENNARD approved the principle of the measure, but objected to its details. Several other resolutions were then put and agreed to, without observation. Upon the resolution that a sum not exceeding 43,113/. 1 ls. 3d. be granted as pensions to officers, After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM add Mr. Hung, the resolution was put and carried. The next resolution was that a sum not exceed ing 143,1831. he granted as retired pensions to officers. Mr. HUME objected to granting to officers hold ing appointments in the service abroad, receiving pensions of 1,2001. and 1,5001. a-year under this grant. The CHANCELLOR of . the EXCHEQUER said a few words which were altogether inaudible in the gallery. • Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN was opposed to the grant. Mr. BARING opposed the grant.—The Resolu tion was then put and carried. Several other resolutions were put and agreed to. Sir H. HARDINGE gave notice that he. would bring forward the remaining Ordnance Estimates, in Committee of Sapply, on Monday next. SALMON PRESERVATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. Upon the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Salmon Preservation (Scotland) Bill being read— Mr. FERGUSSON observed, that a Bill of this description ought not to pass without reference to the private interests of individuals. A Bill of this description was introduced last year and rejected in the other House of Parliament. The Hon. Member here made some allusions to the fisheries in the River Thurso, which were not strictly audible in the gallery. The Hon. Member concluded by mov ing an Amendment to except the River Thurso from the operation of the Bill, as unless that River were excepted, a great injustice would be done to Sir John Sinclair. Mr. HUME seconded the motion. Colonel LINDSAY and the LORD ADVOCATE op posed the Amendment. An Hon. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, said a few words in favour of the Amendment. Mr. H. DRUMMOND opposed the Amendment. The House then divided, when there appeared for the Amendment— Ayes Noes - Majority against the Amendment —76 The Bill'wes then rend a third time and'passed COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. • The CH.rikELLORof the EXCHE QUER, on the House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, rose to move the Miscellaneous Irish Estimates, and would just remark, previous to the Resolutions being moved, that it was intended to place the money to be voted for the Society for Discountenancing Vice, the Charter Schools, and some other Estimates, under the controul of the Lord Lieutenant, but that, intention had been aban doned in consequence of a legal objection which it had been ascertained there was to such an ari-ange ment. In the Appropriation. Act a clause would be introduced, giving to the Irish Government a dis cretionary power over these items. Sir J. NEWPORT, in allusion to what bad oc curred in the discussion on Friday last, wished to clear himself from all imputation of having been concerned in any thing that bore the appearance of a job. It had been said that he was the author of the Cork Institution. That was true ; but Government had altered the conditions on which it was establish ed. When the matter fell into other hands he was not responsible. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER disclaimed having ever had au intention of throwing the slightest imputation on the Hon.. Bart. Mr. F. LEWIS. hoped that the recommendation of the Board to which he belonged to continue the Botanical Garden and the Agricultural Premiums would be attended to. After a few words from Mr. W. LAMB and Mr. V. STUART, Mr. Secretary PEEL recommended; that under the ciretunstancos of the case, any further discussion should be avoided.. Me. FERGUSSON, before the,Houso Went into the Committee, begged to suggvst the expediency of increasing the salaries of the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland: The salary, of a Judge of that Court was only 2,0001., while that of an English Judge was 5,5001., being nearly thrice the sum. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that in consequence of what had been done for the English Judges, the Judges of Scotland had certainly nclaim to consi-. deration. As to the appointment to the Judicial Bench in Scotland, ,it had been the object of his Ma j esty's Government to look only for that professional eminence which entitled their possessor to elevation. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman, that nothing gave him (Mr. Peel) more pletNure, hull the eleva tion of Mr. Cranstoun to. the Bench. Mr. L. FOSTER hoped that when bis.. Majesty's Government were considering the cases of Judges, they would not forget the Irish Judges—(a laugh.) It was not right that the Chief Judges in Ireland should have less than the Puisne Judges in this country. The House then res'ol ved itself into the Committee. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the first Resolution; namely, that the sum of 11.,384/. be granted to the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland for 18 9 8. After a few words from Sir J. NEWPORT and Mr. SPRING RIC E, the resolution was agreed to, as was also a resolution for granting the sum of 9,0001. to ' the Association for the Discountenancing of Vice. On a resolution .being proposed for granting the sum of 8,928/, to the Roman Catholic Seminary of Maynooth, Mr. MAXWELL would not divide the Commit-, tee on the resolution, but protested against their supporting an Institution, in which principles were taught hostile to the Protestant Religion. Mr. S. RICE trusted that the Hon. Gentleman would not interpret the silence of those who differed from him, to inability to contravene his statements, and to bottom that contravention on the very evi.; deuce which the Hon. Gentleman bad himself ad duced. The Resolution was then agreed to, as were also a Resolution for granting 25,0001. to the Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor ; and as Resolution for granting 32,5061. to the Foundling Hospital. V The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in moving that the sum of 1,500/. be granted to the Belfast Academical Institution, observed, that no further qualiAcitipkirsquitecpssary for the admis sion of a St44eit, ifiaftiPeetiu . 6ily from the Synod °Mister 'of his moral' qifdificittrons. Mr. L. FOSTER thokiihtit quite expedient that none test of the qualiticatronitig the Student should be required. He had perfect confidence, however, in the Synod of Ulster ' and was very willing to leave the matter in their hands. Mr. S. RICE entirely disapproved the system of test and qualification of which the lion. Member for Louth so highly approved: Mr. Secretary PEEL wished to suggest an ar rangement which might have the effect of reconcil jug Opposite opinions. For this purpose, he would require a certificate, the form of which he had drawn up, with a view to- the object he had mentioned. Mr. S. RICE was satisfied with what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman. • Sir A. CHICHESTER spoke, but in a tone in audible in the gallery. Mr. F. LEWIS theugh the establishment enti tled to assistance from Government. The Question was then put and carried. The Chairman obtained leave to report the Resolution to the douse, and to sit again. The House resumed. The Report of the Committee was ordered to be received to-morrow, and leave given to the Com mittee to sit again on Wednesday next. LUNATIC ASYLUM BILL Mr. R. GORDON moved the Third Reading of the Lunatic Asylum Bill. • Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved, by way of rider, a clause to regulate the expences of raising money in certain cases. Mr. SEYMOUR objected to the clause. BENETT supported the clause. Lord ALTHORP wished to know whether it was left to the option of the magistrates to carry this Bill into effect ? Sir E. KNATCHBULL would leave it to the majority of the Magistrates. Mr. GORDON made a few observations in a low voice ; and the clause was then put and carried. ALLEGED MISAPPLICATION OF PUBLIC MONEY. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, - that he trusted to the indulgence of the House, having sat in it forty years, in bringing the motion of which he had given notice forward. In speaking of the jealousy of that House, with respect to the issuing of public money, he need not refer to the records of Parliament in proof of it. That jealousy was se well known a characteristic of that House, that he should` deem it needless to seek for proofs of it. If we severed this jealousy from the Representatives of the people, we should tap the very foundations of the national independence arid welfare. He would not weaken. the self-evident truth of this by any argument of his. Sufficient it was for his purpose that the principle was *established, from the assertion of which he. would not shrink, that that House had a right to ' control the expenditure of public money, let it come into the hands of the Commissioners of Taxes iu what shape it might.L-(Hear, hear.) Any viola tion of this principle by the. Government was' a violation of the privileges of that House, and a de reliction from duty, on the part of Ministers, highly censurable.—( hear, hear.) He would no longer detain the House with arguments on this plain pro position, which, if any one chose to deny, he was sure would be met with but one feeling on the part of that House. He would next proceed to a state ment of the facts which had given rise to the re solution with which he meant to conclude. If these facts established the case, he thOught there had been a gross violation of the -privileges of that House. From papers before the House, and from facts that had come to his knowledge, and which he believed to be true, and he challenged Honourable Gentlemen on the other side .of. the House to disprove them, he meant to show that the Resolution 'Oiith which he should conclude 'was' correct. of them, or at any rate a great number of them, Inust recollect the unfortunate war which so long distracted Europe, and wore out this country. From the consequences which followed that war, the coun try might never recover, and it was from some of them that his motion took its rise. At the close of this unfortunate war it was found that .many of the subjects of Great Britain had strong claims on the Government of France, and in the Treaty of Paris therefore, in May, 1814, it was stipulated that the French Government should assign a certain portion of money into the hands of Commissioners appointed by this country for the liquidation of these claims. An Act was passed, the 59th of the late King, in which certain Commissioners were nominated to award and liquidate these claims, and of course they proceeded to the objects of their inquiry, and had, no doubt, ,acted as persons so circumstanced ought to act. He did not mean to refer to the whole of that Act of Parliament, but there was the conclusion of one clause, which it was necessary the House should be in possession of. The part to which he alluded, enacted that in case. all such claims should be liquidated, the money should be appropriated to such other purpose as the Commissioners of the Treasury, or any three of them, should appoint; that-was, whenever there was a surplus over the claims, it was to be at the disposal of the Lords of the Treasury, or any three of them, that number forming a quorum. There was an Act of the 6th of Geo. IV. to enable the Commissionere of WoOds. and Forests, who, by the 4th of the King were to pay certain sums to the Consolidated Fund, instead of so doing, to pay over 70,000/. per 'car of it : to defray the expenses attending the build in g or re building of Buckingham Palace. Of this grant only 27,0001. was actually advanced to defray the ex penses attending the actual building, the rest haVing been applied to the alterations of the gardens and building of the stables. At the same time the words of the Act might be so construed as to mean that all the expenses attending any part of Buck ingham House were to be defrayed out of the hereditary revenue of the Crown, subject to the controul of the Commissioners of Woods and Fo rests. This work was undertaken in 1825, and into its propriety he did not mean to enter. He was quite convinced that the vote of any sum of money necessary for the maintenance of the splendour of the Crown would be cheerfully acquiesced in by :the people of this country; but he was equally convinced that any improper diversion of a sum voted by Act of Parliament from its intended purpose would be deemed unjustifiable, and ought to be visited with . punishment. This was no party question, but one Which would go to decide whether the King's Mi niSters had the power of disposing at their plea4ure of any surplus sum of money that might by .accident fall into their hands,' whithout consulting Parlia ment, even though Parliament should be then sit ting. The case before the House, he considered to involve a most clandestine issue. During the whole of the periods in which the money had issued, Par liament had actually been sitting—no delay could therefore have been apprehended; and consequently no 'excuse could be offered for Ministers in having omitted to apply for the consent of the Legislature to that which, without it, became a misappropria tion. Parliament would have only to declare that, although only one sum of 70,0001. had bgen Paid out of the gross amount ordered to be a dvanced by annual payments of 70,0001. for the building and re. pairs of palaces, it would be expedient to appro. priate the surplus in question, arid there would hav e been an end of the difficulty. That had not been done, however, and he could only account for Lord Liverpool's omitting the formal necessary steps by supposing that his Lordship found that large sums of money were demanded of him, and that lie had no other mode of meeting those demands than by this min-appropriation. The defalcation hav ing been discovered by the Commissioners of Inquiry (as we understood) it was determined to apprise Lord Liverpool of that fact. On the Report being made by his Noble Friend (Lord Farnborough) then at the head of the Woods and Forests, the Chief Commissioner of Liquidation was sent for, and in answer to questions put to him, stated all the circum• stances of the transaction. The House would', lect the similar .approyriation 'of ' another Orr tri which had been 'facetiously - termed, a " God-soli, and on the same ground he supposed the case 0, 4 consideration would b e t rea t e d as siinilarly w, posable; but he held O that that fund W mitre?' that considerable caution should have leen esti' —great reluctance evinced, and a strong ease i necessity made out, before. such an appliettioP, • money should have been directed without the 0: Lion of Parliament. He understood nothing of viv; was called State Policy, but he understood p truth, which would be always, found to be ~t safest guide, and which in the present ease w that which ought to have been followed. The & if missioner (of Liquidation) was asked-" what Of, of this fund is there remaining?" lie.'rer i " 300,000/., I think, but I am quite sure We" lioal , your disposal 2.50,0001."—(A laugh.)—" We ° said the other party," we will dispose of it for Pt —(Laughter.)—The appropriation consequentl y place, but without authority. In this case it ishii. workable that the Treasury Minute for;tll* lisite,, the first 100,0001., was dated twenty days after 7 4 issue. —(Hear.)—The issue took place on the !) of March, 1826, and the Treasury Minute. of Liverpool bore date 30th of March, in the sd o year. The Treasury Minute stated, moreover, ts, the motey was to be appropriated to defray t i expense of erecting and improving Bucking'', Palace, which appropriation was in direct contro l "; don of the Act of Parliiment which had aff i priated other funds for that purpose. The • TresO f , Minute further stated that- the money was - to paid when called for. ; it The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ I-) ,T.,, P a. ' Repaid.—(A laugh.) (' Mr. M. A. TAYLOR—" Well, rep a id—bot i it had been so repaid, we should never haie had knowledge of the transaction." This (the .),V • Gentleman proceeded to contend) was thelati o . sum that had been clandestinely applied sincell Revolution. The Commissioners of Woods r o , Forests had no power to accept of it. NO 11 9 Member could for a single moment attemp t maintain that the, framers of the Bill for the aPl' i priation of the fund in question had ever in Yie:: l 3 disposal of the money different from that preset, by the Aet. In order /o bring the matter fully ' fore the House, he had moved for a return, sirDS: l when presented, he found imperfect. It was atOg r j ed by a statement (as we understood) that there l' 4 a part of it applied to the relief of the sto c A; manufacturers—but it would be found that the on so advanced for the relief of the manufacturers to been all repaid—while—although this .ss'Ofr ' v l month of June, 1828—and that two years .:',. elapsed since the other sums had been misar 5 nett been misag',l priated—not a single shilling of it had been re,, by the-Commissioners of Woods and Forests. sum of 250,000/. had been thus advanced: — On the 10th March, 1826 —XIOO,OOO On the Bth Feb., 1827 On the 25th March, 1827 On the 30th June, 1827 . . 15,0 0 (U Part of that money, it would lie seen, had "); advanced while Lord Liverpool w as, t ;fortunat e , ' not able to attend to business. If this mis-sPF A I' I I priation were to be permitted, it might be 501 . ,'" ? , the subscribers to the erection of Waterloo nrile that as they were losing money lay their adventure , Treasury was ready to advance money, for their rel' i t and thecase might be multiplied ad infinitum. Ids not think that the Treasury people were fool=, but t :, the present case they had acted as if they were -' 0 it would have - cost them very little trouble to 13 ',, obtained the sanction of Parliament for an which, wanting that authority, was tinjust,,, able. In reply to the charge that the trausacol, had not been brought before Parliament, it, wou lj n i contended that in the Triennial Report of the C o o missioners it would appear, but that was a subterfuge—and even if it did appear it would that there had been no authority for the Act it' 4 •l It now became necessary for hires to cite e u sei support of the line of argument he had purfal; and of the resolutions, with proposing which meant to conclude. The first of these was the of Sir E. Seymour, who, in the reign of Charl,„ 6 „,, (1680), was impeached, for that he, being 11 01 surer of the Navy, did lend 90,000/. out of a su p of 584,0001. appropriated for the building of 511 1,4 f towards the contingencies of the army. theie 1711, a Committee had been appointed to jet. into the reasons of the increase of the publi c vily dens, and reported that that increase had been caused by the application of this public money, 0 1 reference to that particular case. In 1 790 5 e stronger precedent occurred, but which was, same time, nothing like the present. Mr. Pi ' , excuse was founded on extreme necessity ; b i l d it oc the present instance no such necessity COr, pleaded. When attacked by Mr. Fox, Mr. P ick t o plied, that while we were at war he did not open the Councils of the country to the public' p J had advanced 200,000/. to the Prince of Conde , other sums to the Emperor; yet, with all the quence Mr. Pitt was master of, and with a n p h popularity, he felt himself placed in a predicate in which, had he not been aided by Mr. 13r Tai. arid other friends (of whom Lord Sidmouth., Af e, one) the vote of censure of Mr. Fox would Areic been carried. [Here the Hon. Gentleman rec i t o the terms of Mr. Fox's vote, which stated t ,,",1e his Majesty's Ministers having commanded (w? Parliament was sitting) the issue of various s' l o l of money without the sanction of Parliament , , acted contrary to th e i r d uty , an d contr ary o i t io trust reposed i n them."} That had occur re ) time of war, and Mr. Bragge's amendment " that the measure for advancing certain sur n :d money for the service of the Emperor, altbetift under,,, ought not to be drawn into a precedent, was, peculiar circumstances of the country, j Now he would ask, could the Ministers of th e fel sent day assert that any peculiar exigency requ l ' he t their departure from the line of their duty? case occurred in 1805 growing out of an a dvanc e i j, 40,000/. to assist the house of Boyd and Bcr' 6 , e / which he could not help characterizing as all ar of power of the most dangerous nature. Mr' Ao pe defended that act, on the ground of its bein.g,"o o for the purpose of sustaining the credit of s which must have otherwise failed and produced.gfliyr loss to the public. But where was there if ° fo' u st it ifia vo b t l o( necessity to be found in the present cane ? cbd from being an act of expediency or necessitY ,l- fer been only a downright assumption of power. ,0 the former act a cause was stated—for the P. i eJi none, MR: of that fact the actors in it were coilv il o p' for it was quite clear that it was intended to be d - t ilt cealed. The discovery was made by the Finances° eel, Select Committees, and the result would, he 11° 1 prove to be a God-send t o t h e public, who wo ul V trus ted, receive their 250,00 W. buck. He Oa k conceive a case more grievous—none rlw re bi 3 direct violation of th e privileges of that Hot lo6 occu rred since the revolution--and he calle d ti l,) l the House to show their disapprobation of i t ,7 strong vote. Wi t h w h a t ev er talent, whateve`ts! g"m", or whatever confidence, (of which i d , much \vas witnessed within the walls of tha til °l • l rt the Act in question was sought to be defendedt,i thanth o g a b: a i t matter rdinvolvingdifficult I: privilegesdlsell sit Ootil r; ,10 , meat and the power of Ministers. Minist ers . this though funds for that purpose had bee n gir l the year before by authority of Pailiament; 0? they misapplied this money to that purpose? 0 4 asserted it was right. If it was so, why was Jr a stated to the House ? Was the House to g ive s the most valuable of its privileges ? There • no necessity for their conduct. Parliament sitting. There needed to have been no d e li , It was a wanton concealment of the misaPlrit tion of the public money, and against a nd in tl' it e opposition to the principles of the British Coost ib e tion. He might have used more argument oe subject, but contented himself with a plain and :! or , pie statement of facts as they arose. As these 'oet applied to the whole subject, the H ouse hat- 1 110 , e means of judging, as representatives fo r the act kingdoms, whether they ought not to visit 03 _t!leins;fv; 1 4`nopiitil It yet abl, the impu %en I so hiractei Who is -y( Sir, I ha account the trien 6bour ur (ientlem to the Ho those N must roe Peati on principle! man has 1 Proceedi be abou' for this the sale Lon oft funds in 4 ° l lll, th. Pro'ing ehargeal fund bei the rel Patric"; Prbiti o , furl j am th• son