The Sun. — London, England, 1828-07-05 00:00:00

S HIPPING INTELLIGENCE-(THIS DAY.) iMPE 1 q AT. PARLIAMENT. I ZOO ;,; Ii , .0 11 -fro?' Otier (FROM LLOYD'S.) D;Att, JULY 4.—Wind S.W.—Passed the Isabella, for -7 uerara ; ,and Robarts, Corbyn, for Bengal., • kPoitTsmouTn JULY 4.—Wind S. W.—Arrived his Ma s..., . , , 7 11 )up Pearl, from Deptford. , , JULY 3.—Wind S.S.W.—Arrived the Ar go,Miiiire, front Sierra Leone. Yui;r 4,,Arrived the Rockers, Soper, r°l3l oietuida ; ;Phoebe Ann, Cooper, from 4latanies. t , JULY 4.—Arrived the Tphigeuia, Chisuev, rain DErnefari. jit MKT, JULY I.—Arrived the Juno, Le .Bas, from aagen. - " • , - •iivtt, JULY S.—Arrived the Vestal, Lowe, from St.' 'etersburgh . ;. Cawton, Lyall, from Stockholm. tfp.xxA . , 23.—The ship G e org e Canning, Chtrire,.f rqm peng4 was lost at the Mauritius, in a.hur-: ep on the 6th March, the captain, chief officer, pas Pe n ancl pert .of the crew drowned ; vessel and cargo y Inst. She was riding quarantine below the:Bell 'rAW INTE n rhea' ,t Jr e wbW ids 1 ) )in t , 1 41 tor iLLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.) COURT OF CHANCERY. IN THE MATTER OF BAXTERi A BANKRUPT. Tke bankrupt carried on , the business of a draper nt -Ipsivich. Under, the bankruptcy his brother was otrtmitted on the 29th of March by the Commis sioners, for not satisfactorily answering the questions Put to him. On the 9th of May he was again brought before the Commissioners, ,and again corn-. nutted. • SUbsequently he applied to be brought be fore the Commissioners a third time: on this occa s% he was told by the solicitor under the oommis rnission, that if he would pay the expences of such bestin g ( amount i ng to about 71.) his request should granted. lle tendered the 71., but the Commis sioners refused to hold the meeting, unless he also 41 'n SecuritY for the payrient of all contingent ex- Pence% which he would not do ;. and Mr. BARBER applied to-day on hii behalf for, the order of the Court, calling. upon the Commissioners t o held a meeting, as desired by the petitioner. Mr. RosE, on the part of the assignees, opposed the petitioner. The LORD CHANCELLOR, considered that as what ever expenses .might be incurred, would, be occa lioned by the conduct of the petitioner , he did not fseel himself justified in ordering the Commissioners 'bringing hi m up a ga in without defraying the It 'bringing M the same time he recommended the ‘-;Oni to to b r i ng the petitioner before them 'port, 44 : paying th e 71., an d w i t h out call i ng upon orn omeet the contingent expenses of the meeting. BEVERIDGE v. HAY. Mr. ANDURTON applied. in this ex-parte case, for a Special injunction. The plaintiff was the defend "es uncle. He had furnished him with sums to Pay th e f ees attending hiS walking the hospital, and qutilifying hisnself as a surgeon. "An agreement was entered into between the parties, that they should eArry on a tivd partnership b us i ness i n N ewgate-street f or of,e_e Years,in whi c h t h ere was a ClauSe prohibiting the dent f rom carrying on business in any other place shi five Miles of Newgate-street. Th e p ar t ner - P had expired, and the defendant had commenced practice within a few doors of his uncle's. He had, the the ' .si nce the dissolutio n of ,the p artners hi p , ta k en iaeh (choledaiheis nt sums' th e I nso l ven t Debt ors ' A ct , an d sche uncle for a debt of 2,9004 principally the os ed of sum that he had received on account 10 - Th e is late Partnership and applied to:his own use. 0... , n pray er of the bill was to restrain him from carry. iliil . g Orthusiness in Newgate-street and from collecting See to more of the partnership debts. The same mo ae on Was made to his Honour, the Vice-Chancellor, who refused the prayer of it, on the ground that. he f ilo:the the prohibiting clause in the agreement ex and • with the term of the partnership. The LORD CHANCELLOR felt rather inclined to the grant theinjunetion; but after the jud gmen t o f t h e teak Vice-Chaneellor, he could no t d o i t unt il a f ter no - key ri ce of the motion had been g i ven . H e t h ere f ore d. is di rected notice to be given, and the motion to be 141 %ight in again befOre the breaking. up of the t sittings, vhO COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Say - HE iINQ y. sin EDWARD MOSTTN HOWARD , AND cerilitgf • This wan an indi c t men t fo r p er j ury and subornation of Pi" P e rjury, arisin g out ' o f t h e suit instituted by - Si r Jacob the . 48 tley, in the Consistory Court, for. a di vo r ce f ro m tadY 41t)• rses' °Y, on the ground of a criminal intercourse with say' r „ -ll Ptain Garth, The case was fixed specially for this --(1140 and in expectation of its coming on the' Court was g ' crowded. ded had it U T Puti Lord Tenteiden's' taking his seat, nts st .1% PLAT; one of the Counsel for the prosecution, , ate that he understood it was the intention of the de- Lice, 'eodants to w i t h draw the recor d. It h a d b een move d , b y ach c " t iorari into this Court, and the defendants had right t° withdraw it if they thought fit. set f Alti srs. Go nnvv and CAMPBELL, who were engaged Ira „__°!' the defend ants, d en i ed that there was any intention of ievc hdrawin g the record, , bad SCARLETT, w h o l ea d s f or t h e prosecut i on, sa i d he seen assur e d l ast n i g h t b y a gentleman whose word he o f ,_ °ld not h ave d ou b ted, that the defendants had resolved i° withdraw the record. Under this impression lie had h r brou g ht down his papers, and was not prep ared. o 7r. GURNr.y and M r . CANIPBELL again den ied that any a Such intention existed on the part of the defendants, and "ggeSted that the ease should be fixed for Tuesday next. hey Lord TENTRRDEN said, that after what Sir James Scar hat l et t said, he could not press the cause on to-day, but he or nuld not fix any day for it; all he could say was, that it g a it "eat remain in the paper. ley The case therefore stands over sing die. HORTICULTURAL BREAKFAST. not - 'LARKIN V. ELLIOT AND ANOTHER. tic :t. hie was an acti on b roug h t by the celebrated confec -4e in New B on d-st reet , aga i nst two Members of the " " I teittee of Management of the H ort i cultural Society, to 1*" , - : ve e 4091. 15a., the balance all ege d to b e due to him red r Qf a contract made with the Horticultural Society, to a collation for the breakfast given at th e Horti cults a 1 Gardens, Chiswick, on the 23d June, 1827. plank. CAMPBELL stated the plaintiff's case. The b e -4 tiff was applied to, to know on what conditions sup p ly c ollation to about 2,000 perso ns , at a A P l 4 ,, °li t breakfast, at a the Horticultural Gardens, Chi sw i c k. t Jarrin stated he would be willing to supply th e col -4,-441 at the rate of 15s. a-head, incl u di ng i ces , w i nes , and f a ,' TO this offer Mr. Jarrin subjoined a sketch of the e : he int e nded to supply. Subsequently, Mr. J arc i n re . 1a... °-4 . an intimation that the Committee conc e i ve d t h at a it ,*}-Pen s ive e ntertainment would snit equally well, and a -"'l ,„7, 4 a,finally arranged that Mr. Jarrin should, supply so 'lion at 121. a-head, Some of the company arrived ar 1 y se twelve o'clock, but the company continu e d t o 9 Le until six o'clock, and instead .of 2,000 person, ;„ -a mi Were admitt e d on ti c kets. There was no compl a i nt ', 4 , g Y thin until six o'clock, and the parties who arrived ' 4 O late hour did not find an abundance of that sub. Ist• -t ikl fare whi c h wou ld h ave b es t suited their appetites. La : n ' out of every ten persons who attended went away ear and but some rho hail com e a t dinner hour complained, f we p the strength of those complaints the defendants re a. to pay Mr. Jarrin the amount of big contract! and he 97- s - a dder the necessity of bringing the present action. , '."aral witnesses were examined on the part Of tin e Pprove the quantity and value of the articles, r n i'lled by the plaintiff. „,„ 'l•4 defen ce was , tha t th e su ppl y was wholly i nsu f fi cient Th e f or 2,000 persons. T he Jury found a verdict for the defendant ex tO prsef nen, inn and klk a 'ls° tew me. knd but : 4'rlf BY DROWNING.----On Thursday , - " f "Aglast; ELISIIA WHITE, a youth about fourteen y ears 'r "gs, servant to Mr. MOZLEY, of Blackwell, near But .if7),Paet with his death by bathing in the mill-pool, near ' e "Met place.. It appears that be. and a few of his cop '•''S i 114 / 4 1 ,it abbot the same age; 'ivent to bathe, when he:ii-- l i , "ninth , gOt ciut of his, epth, and not being a switnnier „ , „ 4 ,' , drpwned.—Stockpert Advertiser. P r, ... ,1 lan , kflne evening last week, a- black dog named -;•-• ' 1 44 nested himself in the pit of the Beverley Theatre, $„... 1 . , t Lm q*.°. 4 011tielman who saw him, going into that park of iei : h"liei aceosted him in the usual familiar way, "Jock, If 1 4 r Alokp. but before he had time to pat the dog's head, L Ikvrai media by a Scotabman, wh e l ou d ly demande d ea 7, liZdft for the public insult he had received. The gee- Szq, . quite astounded with the ratt li ng of the Scotch- On 14, k 1 t ( "ltte, begged to know what he meant. Tb 4. Scotch- Was ~, vehemently said, What Ad you mean, Sir, by calling 0,20 ck., in this p u bli c p l ace ? Th e gentleman pointed to 71, 0 0 4 4 g; saying, ".They.call him Jock." . The Scotchinan a y e! Q,ist dow n am id st peals of lautliter.--Doneastef I, 'NI. "7", - HOUSE OP U.071D Fain ar, JULY 4. - - . The Marquis of LA iN &DOWN E presented a pe tition-froM the county 'of Roxburgh, agai;ist the importation of Foreign:Wool. The Packet. Vessels' Licensing Bill, .and the Ale-houses Licensink Bill, were read 'a third time and posited. The Elections Poll§ Bill was read a second time. The'House went into: a ComMittee - on the frisk and Scotch Small Notes Bill. The Barra CARNARVON said that the Bill would produce. groat inconvenien ce , un l ess d ra f ts Under . 51.. were exempted from its operation. As. the clause at present stood, it applied. not only to bank notes, but to drafty -on bankers, so that a Scotch gentleman sending up to London a draft to his tradesman, would render him Self liable to a pe nalty, and the tradesman attempting to negoeiate it could be also punished; the Bill, therefore, as lathe case of all law, intemled to restrain actions not stamped with Moral gnilt, : ,Would merely prove a trap, to the im!Rcent and unwary. Nke of WELLINGTON assure d .th e No`ble"Earl that his apprehensions were groundless, as the words of this Act were precisely the same as those in the 48th of George 111., which applied to, drafts; drawn in England. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that the last clause in the Bill would sufficienily protect any ,gen 'tlesnan from': the consequences of inadvertence, as under that clause a Power was given . Of remitting the penalty. . The Earl of MALIVESBURY objected to the Bill in itk present shape, and thought that some alteration ought to be introduced to protect a Scotch gentleman from the penalty which would attach , to him for drawing a draft for any sum less than 5/. .on his, banker in London. After some further observations, the Bill . was agreed to without the amendments and the report received. The House next went into a Committee on the Irish Promissory Note Bill, and the amendment pro f posed by the Duke of Wellington was, that age-zits should not be liable to be called upon to pays coinage for the notes issued, unless residing at places where either the Banks, or their Branch Banks, were esta blished that had issued them. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE and the Earl of ROSSLYN expressed their concurrence in the amend ment, though the latter Noble Lord objected to the principle of the Bill. - The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved for the production of the Report of the Grand Jury of Kil kenny to the local Government of Ireland. Tile Duke of WELLINGTON had no objection to the motion, but he understood the Report had not been received by the Local Government. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE understood that the Report had been delii , ered into the Irish office by the County Member.—The motion was then agrped to.—Adjourned till Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 4. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from Thomas Waston, the master of the ship Bolton, complaining of the . grievances suffered, by him in consequence of the conduct of officers of the Customs. Mr. R. DUNDAS presented a petition from the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, on the sub ject of Diplomas. Mr. SCOTT presented a petition from the Land owners of the county of Roxburgh, praying for a duty on Foreign Wool. Mr.-BROWNLOW gave notice, that he should move• on Tuesday next' for leave to bring in a Bill ,on the subject of the Drainage of Ireland. Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from Alnwick, in Northumberland, against Slavery in the West Indies. Sir JOHN COTTERELL presented a petition from the glove-manufacturers of Kington, in Here ford,., praying, for a duty on the importation of .Foreign gloves. A pcnon from the Treasury presented papers .ffilitive,to the quantity of glass exported. GAME LAWS. On the motion of Mr. S. WowrtrY, the House resolyed itself into.ACaremittee-on the Game Laws. The several clauses of the Bill were agreed to, with some verbal alterations. Mr. BENETT objected to giving to landlords the power of giving unqualified individuals leave to sport over commonable lands. He should, therefore, move that the words " commonable lands" be left out. After a desultory conversation between several Members, Mr. BENETT postponed his amendment until the' brin g ing up of the Report. The House resumed,,then and the report was ordered to be re ceived on - Monday next. . Sir J. MACKINTOSH -presented a petition from 105 English Gentlemen, prosecuting the study. of surgery and anatomy in Paris, complaining of the impediments to the cultivation. of anatomical know= ledge in England.—Ordered -to be referred to the Committee on Anatomy. Sir J. MACKINTOSH also presented three petitions from Bath and its neighbourhood, against Slavery. DANISH CONFISCATION. Sir J. MACKINTOSH had another petition,to present of great importance. It related to tke claim of an individual on the: Government of this country, and if the facts were true the petitioner had a claim in moral justice, though there might be no legal means of enforcing it. A' case of this kind was peculiarly for the consideration of the Muse. The petitioner (Mr:. Shillito) was one - of the few per sons who survived the vexations and "oases to which British merchants trading to Denmark and Norway were subjected by the confiscation which took place in 1807. In consequence of the bombardment of . Copenhagen in• that year, the King of Denmark published an edict, confiscating the property of all British subjects. in Denmark and Norway,' and not only confiscating property in their possession; but confiscating all claims of British subjects on the subjects of Norway and SWeden. 'The subjects of these two countries were ordered to pay into the Danish Treasury all the amount due by them to British merchants so that the British merchants trad ing to Denmark loSt both their property and claims. He particularly wished to call the attention of Go vernment to the fact, that at the time the petitioner's property was thus confiscated, the Government of this country had in their hands the - sum of 1,200,0004, as Droits of Admiralty, the pro ceeds of Danish ships , and goods, and he •(Sir J. Macki ntos h) w i shed to know whether there could be a clai m to t h e li quidation of which those Droits of Admiralty cou ld b e more justly applied, without any reference Whatever to the fact that out of Droits Of Admiralty generally simihir claims %%ere liqui dated. Indeed. the stro heard urged in nP stground which he had ever that House for c ont i nu i ng to the Crown the Droits of Admiralty, vas,.thit this - fund afforded r irte ga to the Crown the naeasis ofitwarding com pensa tion to ul r and British subjectsiliesml hostilities. —Th e sufferers who-h a d •suffered loss 'ferred .their. claim • to indem n ifi cation out of pre the • Droits of' Admiralry,- , hut it was• then found that this fund was exkitusted,' and had in - fiict - been' ap plied to' ther - 'pritSst! ! , would ,then remark, that if the ships , 04 the pypceeds of w hi c h were considetea to be oGAdmiralty, had not been' foie& the Goeetninent,_ they. robablirs-414 f ume b een applied. by Abe Dani s h : debtors in liquidation of their debts teo British ere& tors, and therefore the sufferers had a stronger claim upon _this fund. He did ,not mean -to say that those Droite of Admiralty were not applied to liW ful and laudable purpo..es, but what he complained of was that this fund (one-twentieth part of which would satisfy the claims in question) being exhausted, the British Government did net take other means to indemnify the petitioner and others in similar situa tions. The Treaty of Keil was .concluded between England and Denmark in the year 1814, and :upon, that . oceasimu the . K d nglish Government might surely hive procured indemnification for the ,snfferers ; but that opportunity wig 'suffered to pass, and thus the petitioner was left wholly and `entirely without redress, except an appeal to the British nation. That the act. Of the Danish: Government . was contrary - to the law of nations, there could be no doubt,' blif if any, such doubt existed the opinion of Lord Plenborciugh in the as of Wolff v. Axholme," tried in • the Court of King's Bench in the year 1816,- would set that doubt at rest, -for that Noble and Learned Lord. upon that occasion, expressly said that the 'Ordinance of the Danish Government in 1807 was a Contraven tion' of the law- of' nations. trusted he had satisfied the House that ;the Brrlich Governthent had in 1807. a fund, out of which those claima might and ought to have been satisfied,, and that they had afterwards neglected their duty during the. nego chitions preceding- the treaty of Kiel by -not proiridingiudeninification for British Subjects, and that this "Was a case of moral claini which could not be enforced in a Court of Law, and thereforiniore fit for the favourable consideration of a British House of Commons.. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (who spoke in.a ,very. low' tone) said, this case, as the House must be aware, was one of very old stand: ing. In 1807 this country. though herself jai& fled in. preventing Denmark from lending aid to other powers who were le4ued . against England, and a hostile declaration. was: published. The Go vernment of Denmark .thought it right, in conse quence, to direct all. Danish subjects owing debts to British ' subjects, whether they.resided in Denmark or in this country, to pay those debts into the Danish treasury. This was done, and the persons who, in consequence, suffered losses, conceived they. had a claim on . the British Government. He believed it was perfectly true, that when this petitioner brought his claim before the Government, he re ceived this answer, that he must wait until' the period came for the negotiation ,of peace;. and he did not mean to, deny that expectations were in consequence excited. It was equally true that when• the treaty of Kiel case to be negotiated, the claims of these persons did net . form any part of that negotiation. He was not, however, prepared to admit, that the .British Government had in that respect acted im properly. It was very important in 1814 that peace should he concluded with Sweden; and it would not have been right to have suffered comparatively trifling obstacles to stand in the way of the attain ment of that object. The general .interests of the country must, be allowed to predominate over those of a private nature.' This was the simple principle on which the - whole of this case was decided, with out any reference to the country where the loss was said to have been Sustained. Mr. WARBURTON said, the elaim of the pre sent petitioner was not upon the Danish or Norwe gian, but upon the British Government.. With respect to the step taken by the Danish Govern merit, at the commencement of the war in question, they had certainly had great provocation to take it. It was true, that in consequence they confiscated a small portion of the property due 'by individuals in' Denmark to English merchants. But the amount thus confiscated bore a very small 'proportion, in deed, to the amount of property actually due. At the breaking out of the war above two Millions of property were seized by the British GoVernment . in British ports. That property did not really belong to Denmark; for it was actually the property out of which the English merchants hoped to receive pay ment of the debts due to them from Denmark. By that act many Englishmen of spotless:integrity were suddenly and entirely ruined ;. and these droits ought to have been set apart until the arrival of peace, when such an arrangement might hive been made as would.have relieved the sufferers.' Mr. S. WORTLEY said, that . where there existed a claim of substantial justice it ought to be attended to; especially after the late discussion, in which it. was stated that a large sum of money advanced, to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests was ad vanced as a loan. He trusted that if ever that loan should•be. repaid, some part of it would be. applied to the relief of the class of persons to which the peti tioner belonged. Mr. HUME had been requested to support the petition, and `!:lid so with great satisfaction. What had - taken plaCe was in plain terms a downright rob bery committed upon individuals. 'He trusted that it would induce'the House, without delay, to put an end to . the ancient but ba rbarous system of Droits altogether. •He. thought that the Right Hon. Gen tleman ought to attend to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for'BoSsiney ; for if any of the money ob tained from the French Government, and advanced to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, should make its re-appearance, in what way could it be bet ter applied than in relieving those who had thus suf fered spoliation? Mr. TRANT declared, that 4 case more folly made put—a demand more strongly' appealing to the natio:sll4l honour and justice-=he had never in his life met with. The 'petition was then wad. On moving that it be printed, Sir JAS. MACKINTOSH would trouble the House with a few words. , He wondered to , hear the Right,Hon -Gentleman represent him as not having laid any stress on, the subject of the Droits. On the contrary, that appeared .to lam to be an ex ceedingly important point. What is the fact as re specting these. Droits ? That the English, Govern meat seized, in the ports of, this comirtrr, the property of Danish and Norwegian merchants, intended to pay the debts due by.Dauish to English merchants. That property was carried pff by the English. Govern ment, and converted. into Droits of Admiralty. In other words, a debtor, on his way to pay his credi tor, had a hand suddenly thrust into his pocket, and the money with, which it was his intention to pay his debt forcibly taken away. Under such circum stances, could it be contended that the English Go vernment had contracted. no moral responsibility-to wards English creditors, whose ruin they had caused by intercepting the, assets in their Way, to the pay ment of ; those creditors' demands ? The :fast une quivocally was, that the proceeds of the Danish property confiseated our,Government ought, in the first instance, to haye been applied to the indem nification Of the sufferers in this country. On those grounds, he really hoped that, they would seriously consider the subject.,. If not, he should probably deem it his duty, by ; a motion for papers, to bring the subject before the Honse in a more formal shape. The petition was ordered to, be printed. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a similar petition from the Master, Warden, -Btc., of the Corporation of Cutlers, at Sheffield, and hoped the Right Hun. Gentleman would not hesitate to propose to the House to compensate the .claimants for the losses which they had sustained. Similar petitions •were. _presented by Mr. S. WORTLEY, from certain merchants at Leeds ; and by Mr. THANT, from Messrs Latham and Co., of Dover. Sir G. NOEL presented a petition from the Woolgrowers of the county of Rutland, praying for •preteetten against foreign wool, Sir G. LIEATHCOTE presented a similar pe tition from Llanrwst ; and took. that opportunity• of stating,that great distress still prevailed among the wool-growers in the county of Rutland and its neighbourhood. He trusted that ,the petitioners ,would obtain substantial relief. • • • • Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a petitionn, from the- Coroner of Bury St. Edmunds, complaining of the inadequate rate of remunerating his office. The' petitioner stated, that in the course of the yedr he had travelled 1,110 miles, had been forty slays in performing his duty, and that the annual amount of his fees was not 604 Mr. HUME presented a petition from Aber deen, very numerously signed, praying that the House would take effectual means for the abolition of negro slavery. Mr. WESTERN presented a similar petition from Witham, in Essex. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. • • - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER inOved the Order of the Day for the House to re solve itself into a.Committee of Supply. Mr. HUME: wonld take the present as the only opportunity whiCh t:.e lateness of the Session would present; of, putting a question ,to the Right' Hon. Gentlemah" opposite (Sir G. - Murray), which con cerned a subject of great interest - to thecountry. By 'the ,newspapers it appeared "that the Governor of Trinidad; Sirß.alph WoodfOrtle, had lately died, and - he (Mr. Hume) was•anxious to pat a question to the Colonial Secretary respecting the expenses attendant on the establishment of that island, He,was :desirous 'Of - asking . the' Right Hon. and Gallant Secretary, whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Go vernment to make •any reduction in those Colonial Establishments during the . vacation ? The. Hon. Gentleman here drew a comparison between the islands , of Trinidad and Grenada, the latter of which he said. possessed a Constitution on the British mode, while the former Was. a cOlOny under the King's orders, Without an executive government.. He then went-on to say these and every establishment on the two islands proved the advantages 'of giving the Colonies repre sentative- Legislatures; for where •these • did not exist, the taxes were heavy and the expenditure ex travagant.': ,'• Sir G.' - MURRAY said, 'hereafter it might be properto introduce into 'those Colonies a system of .Representative Legislatures, but under the present Circumstances he - thought that the absence of such a, system was lireferable. As far his influence could extend; he would certainly go into the sources of ex penditure in the 'Colonies, and would' reduce all offices as far as they could be dispensed with, without material injury to the public service.(Hear,) Mr. STUART would take the opportunity of calling. the attention Of Ministers to the extremely high duties that had ,beers imposed upon British goods , imported into the United States of North America.. These imports were so high, that in many instances they amounted 'almost to; an absolute pro hibition of British commerce. The American Go vernment had levied upon iron an import duty equal to 100 per cent. in the prices which the articles would sell for in this country—on coarse woollens, a duty of 300 per cent.; on cotton manufactures, 87 per cent. ' They could not blame America for pro-. tecting her own manufactures, .but it behoved this country to exam►ne how far they could' be. supplied with cotton from Brazils, Egypt, and her own Colo nies. The import duty on raw cotton from Ame rica, was. 'only six per cent., which was merely no minal. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER looked to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Courtenay), for a reply, but the Right Hon. Gentleman remaining quiescent, the subject passed sub silentio, and the House resolved itself into a Com mittee of Supply. • ORDNANCE ESTIMATES. The Speaker having left the Chair, Sir H. HARDINGE rose, for the purpose of moving the Ordnance Estimates. The voluminous Report of the Finance Committee, which he now saw in the hands .of.many. Members, was a sufficient explanation of the delay that had unavoidably occur red, seeingthstt it was considered desirable to have that Report on the table, in which the Ordnance department was examined, previous to bringing forward the Estimates connected with it. He trusted the Report bad . been long enough'. in .the hands of Members to enable them to form some opinion on this subject. The usual course that had been pursued in introducing these.. Estimates to the notice of the House was to explain the difference between those of the current and' the 'preceding year. This part of his duty 'he should presently .en deavour to discharge, and next, in pursuance of the, instructions received from . his Majesty's Govern ment, he should endeavour to explain the intention of Ministers, with regard to those recommendations of the Finance: Committee contained irr,the • report, on the subject of the Ordnance. The Expenditure of the Ordnance, for 1828 amounted to 1,785,1961. from which was wise deducted credits given to the public to the amount of 220,000/., making the total vote for the Ordnance Department this year, 1,565,1961. Now, according to page 4of the Esti-. mate, this amount showed a reduction of 82,7761., as compared with the expenditure of the preceding year.. The decrease arose from a saving in the re pairs of English, Irish, and Foreign Barracks.— The savings nosier each particular head were as follow. In the department of the English Barrack Repair:, 14,8581..; Irish, 17,7661.; • Foreign, 50,265/. To this was to be added a sum of 2'.,890/. on account of military stores, making a total, along with the preceding sums, of 112,7791. However, this diminution, as far as the repairs of barracks were concerned, was no actual saving, but only a post ponement of the expense of repairs till the next year. However, the late Master-General of the Ordnance, being desirous to effect a reduction of 70,000/. or 80,0001. thought that it might be effected,. with the least inconvenience,. by postponing the're pairs of barracks.. . This, then, was no seeing, but only. a , postponement of expense, as was explained at page .70 of the Report, and therefore he should not take credit for it as a saving, more particularly as inconveniences might result in tropical climates, when barracks were allovkd to go to decay, which they would do there rapidly, to our ultimate loss in two ways; first, from the injury sustained by the buildings, and, secondly, from the likelihood that the health of our troops would suffer from an expo sure to the climate. With respect_ to the saving in the military store branch, a saving of 29,8Q04; that would be in . a great degree permanent, for it related to the article of iron bedsteads, a supply of which had not been contracted for in the present year, and, having been once procured, of course would net be speedily required. In 1824, he himself pro posed, that instead of one wooden bedstead for every four men, each individual should be provided with an iron bedstead for his own use. The proppsition had been agreedtc, he was happy to say, ,with equal advantage to the comfort of the men and :public economy. The effective charge, of the Ord nance Branch for 1826, exclusive of sea Service, was 841,7714 In 1815, the last year of the war, the effective charge of the Ordnance Department, exclu sive of the sea service, amounted to 3,835,4251: So that when we compared the expenditure Ode cur , rent year with that of 1815, it appeared that, in this dep;3e'tment, reduction. had been effeeZed of nearly. three millions sterling, being more than three-fourths of the entire since the . close of the war.. It should also be remarked, that in this department the ex penditure of 1828 was 201,0001.. Jest than in l ow) ; and it appeared that a million, sterling had been saved in the last nine years, since 1820, the Ordnance. Branch alone, But if we took into ac count the Departments consolidated with, the Ord. ;mice , , the diminution would • appear still greater, for in 1820, the expenditure was 2,220,149/. • in 1828, .1 , 785,096 L; makin gs re d uct i on o f 434,951ibet ween the expenditure of 1820 and 1828. : The red.uction, then, effected since 1 820,. might rte taken in round num? hers at 435,0001. As a measure of ectincny:.then, t h e consolidation that had taken place . iti this De, partmeets was proved to be 'effectual. , The 007_ nonce Department was the-greet depot of military Stores. The expense of this Department desiendea upon the wants of other Departments; and InereaS• ed expense had taken place by reason of the ei4ed sion of .our eClonies, our fleets, and aiuut s Of all D'epartments, ther• mruni t nce was ,that AC sl ( Test growth, and if awe iinpured or put, . the Most difficult to reorgenise: the ave._ _Piga expense, of the !eat • five years had been 1,940We - 7 - 2,009;00a of old stores, savings, rents, &c, were credited t o t h e pu bli c s i nce 1817, in d i m i, nution of the . vates, With respect to the military part O rdnance, he was ready to say, that in his op ° i f ul t e h l: it hid been reduced as law as it could— a fact satisfactorily proved, by the evidence taken before the Finance Committee. The proportion of Artillery in the field, to the number of the Army, was less in the British than in any Continental ser vice; it had onegun to every 500 men—the French One to every 30P- 7 —and so on with respect to the : troops (?f.. . and . ..other States. In time of war, we had one artillery man to every nine soldiers of the Line: and •in peace the number had been reduced, till the proportion was, one artilleryman to every fourteen of tilt- these circum stances it would appear possible reduc tion had been made. in this part of Our force; and it would be eqnally, evident. that the Civil Department had been in like manner reduced. In the Civil Departments transferred to the Ord nance, he reduction amounted to 174 clerks, and The salary saved thereby to 47,000/. With regard to the stations and establishments kept np by the Ordnance, it appeared from the 97th page of the Report that the ,nsonher of stations did not exceed by, more than two.or three, those ltept up in 1792. This was exclusively- of Ireland and the Colonies, the stations in which were, at that time under sepa rate heads of eXpenditure. He next game to the Mili tary Superanntrations-=-be here t . ound that the non effective of the Artillery was at the highest in 1820, when the expense amounted to :333,5844 which in 182$, was 306,4831.; making a reduction in round . numbers of about 30,000/. in this branch, - since the former period. As far as he could form an opinion, the superannuations had pow reached theirmaximuna; for, according to the Pension List, the number of pensioners, in 1820, was 9,984; in 1828, they ,were ,11,269, making an increase in nine years of peace of 1,28.51. The deaths of the Pension List in the last five years were 970, forming an average of 174 .annually. The number of men pensioned frOm the -Regiments of Artillery averaged 180 ; consequently, the decrease was 14 a-year.. The increase arose :from the number of registered men put on the Pen -lion. List. , The discharged . registered men put on that list, after completing a period of four teen and twenty-one years' service, had been the cause-of the -increase of pensioners exceeding the deaths, but the introduction'of these registered men would cease in 1832.- In civil;superannuutions the Ordnance Department had already past its_ maxi mum, which occurred,in 1822, when the expendi l ture on that Account was 41,5424, while the average expense of the last four years was only 45,0001., making a decrease of 6,.500/.- since 1822. He next came to the Barrack Department. In the whole of England'and Ireland, the accommodation for troops .in time of war was for 261,000 men—in peace it was only necessary to accommodate 89,000—mak- Ing,a reduction of 170,000. By the. reduction in the Fish Barrack Department, 38,0004 a year was saved, and he thought that the Irish Barracks had :been put on a very excellent footing.. He new ap proached a part of the subject which he contem plated with considerable -apprehension. Lie al luded to: some of the representations made by the Finance. Committee with respect .to .cer tain reductions in the Ordnance Department. He was.instructed by-his Majesty's Government to say,- that the recommendation of the Committee would be assented to us far as concerned the redu6, tions of the clerks, of the Ordnance, and of the Sur veyor-General, but-Miniaters,were unable to concur in the proposition to.abolish the office of Lieutenant . General of the Ordnance. The salary of that officer was in 1796, including . allowances of various sorts, in time of peace, 1,192/. but it was raised during the war, and wasnow 1,567/. The other recommenda tions of the Committee had-been received by the responsible advisers of- the CIOWII. With respect to the reductions suggested. in the salaries of the officers, the Surveyor-General at present received a salary of :1,8874 a-year. In 1811' the Commission ers of Military Inquiry recommended that it be re duced to 1,2001. and the Committee now recommend ed that it Should be .fixed. it 1,5004 a year, and fur ther reduced to 1,2004 a year on the next vacancy. He was no longer connected with the Ordnance Department,' but he begged to say that emoluments. of the Clerk of the Ordnance were in -war AS fol low :—Salary, 8611.—fees, 1,515/.—making eclear income of 2,376/. Since the peace, the sa lary and emoluments were as follow :---the for mer 6651.—the latter '13394--making an average of 1,504/. in three' years of peace. Now, if . they took a mean term 'between the'paytOent in war and peace, 2,376/. and 1,5044, it would be 1,9451. in 1824, Government, at the suggestion: of an Hon. Member opposite, recommended that the Clerk of the 'Ordnance should receive a - salary of 1,8371. which was the amount charged in the , year's Esti mates. The Finance Committee now propose to reduce' the salary to 1,200/. per anntirm . It should be recollected, that the Clerk of the Ordnance was obliged, ex ritiltio, to be in the House of Commons, and that he had many and serious ` daties to perform. This he knew from experience. lie was' satisfied that the . members of the Ordnance Department whp remained would cheerfully submit to the recommen dations of the Committee, sanctioned by Govern-• ment, as far as it concerned pecuniary sacrifice. At the same time, coupling the reductions proposed by. the ConiMittee in this departMent with'the praises, which they had bestowed on its general management and conduct, he did say he thought they had been a - little severe on some of the most efficient officers of the Department, whom, at the same time that they praised them, they proposed to curtail of one-third of their salaries. However, if the financial state of the country made such reductions necessary, he was far from saying that they should be refused. There was another point in the recommendation of the Fi. nanee ComMittee which was advanced on different grounds. It required not the sacrifice of the salaries of individuals, but of an office most essential to the well...being of the service. Therefate, whilst. the Government felt no reluctance to do all in its power to icdoce the salaries of the several officers, in this case, where the sacrifice to the public service , would be great, the Gm ernment had thought it their duty to resist the recomraeodations of the Finance Committee ; 'Hp alluded. to the, . office of . Lieut.-General of the Ordnance. He hoped to j show that the grounds upon which the Comniittee recommended the abolition of that office were erro neous. The first ground was, that the Commis sioners of Military Inquiry in 1811 had come to a similar conclusion. The Commis s i oners say in their report —`r Front the information given to us respecting- the actual performance, of, any distinct duties by the Lieut.-General of Ordnance, we incline to the belief that this appOintment was not essential to the constitution of the department, especially if it were to be _understood thatthe tioo of the Master-General should not be withdrawn from the duties of his offide by other appointments." The Finanee ComMittee of 1828 concur" in this opinion, and, adverting to' the fact that the Lieut.- General ; has been absent front gn g lapct At different times, they. are of opittian that during the peace the office of Lieutenant-General may be dispensed with, and the salary saved. to the public. NoW he (Sir H. Hardinge) found that the reasons on which the Finance. cOnimittee founded their recommendation were the . Report of the Commissioners .of Mili tary Inquiry; and also the fact a the Lieutenant .General.'s absence front .- this country during peace. 40 would show that the views of Lord ,Cliatham were different from the 'sentiments. ex- Tressed in . the report.. That Noble Lord had de dared on his oath, Whew examined before the Corn *mitsioners, that .be was.astonished that it could ergo into the, head of any man that the offieo of Lieut.- - General of the Ordnance Was unnecowary. 'He (Sir H H.) . would even 'show that the Report of the Comm issiOneis. of .Military Inquiry, in '.l 81 1; dif. I *feted essentially * , as to, what oughtlo. be the consti 'wool, awe . toara of . Ordnaw. from thiA .. Fipance . 1 Commlitec,' l 'The - Commissioners proposed that " the Voard of Ordnunceilike the - Boards of Athiti- I rally and Treasury, be constituted by one general - commission, the members of - it being styled ' Corn tesraatrioene,xte that t se t d he b yt he • missioners of the Board of Ordnan c e , ' and that the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance, so l ong as it ma y be deemed expedient to retain such officer, b e : placed at the bead of it, and that the p owers and duties of the Board , subject to the Mast er Geneittl's iisterference, . withthe sameth al a present B our, be signa ture of each of the members be made of equi4 vali dity in,authenticating instrum en t s an d ot h er orders ; and that as the four junior memb ers o f t h e , n e w Board will cease to hav e any branch of busin ess com mitted to their individual and special management, the patronage of tile offices at the Tower. hitherto separately enjoyed by them, or of those offices which we shall presently recommend to be substituted in lieu thereof, be given generally to the Board, and be exercised in rotation by all the Members of it." The Commissioners, it would appear, therefore wished ,the Members of the Board of Ordnance should be without responsibility; but if the House turned to the Bth page of the Report of the Finance Committee,.they would find expressed a very differ ent opinion, as the. Finance Committee were clearly in favour of a Board witb responsibility. The fol lowing were their words : " The Committee are of opinion, that where there is collective.responsibility, each individual is disposed to con sider himself a% in a great degree relieved from personal responsibility ; but that where there is individual respon ,sibility no such feeling can exist; responsibility is then brought home to each individual, and is a constant motive to render him faithful in the discharge of his public duty. The Committee think that in the latter case (which is the case of the Ordnance Department), while on the one hand the advantage of a prompt and consistent administration securetUby personal responsibility, on the other, the ten dency which there always is, when power is vested in a single person, to .abuse it, is effectually restrained by the continued checks of the controlling authority of the Board and Master-General." Now., he left it to the impartial consideration of the House, whether the Finance Committee Was not diametrically opposed to the Military Commis .sioners, as to what should be the formation of the Ordnance Board. The Committee, therefore, in supporting their recommendation to abolish the office of Lieutenant-General, by a reference to the opinion of the ,Military Commissioners, evidently mistook thofaets-e-(Hear, hear.) With respect to that part of the recommendation which' stated that the office should at all events not be continued during peace, be would not stop to inquire whether the mission of the Lieutenant-General in 1827 was one of peace or war. The opinion of the Government in favour of keeping up the office of Lieutenant-General was founded on the highest authority that could be brought forward by him or by any other Man— namely, that of the late Master-General; he (the Duke of Wellington) was sent for by the Commit tee, and asked—. •' Do you consider the continuance of the Lieutenant- General of the Ordnance, as essential to the well-being of the service? Yes I do. The Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance has some very important duties to perform ; I du out mean to say that the Master:General cannot per form them ; for :he does sometimes perform those tlutiei. In ray time the Lieutenant-General was absent sometimes, and at other times I was absent myself; when he was ab -eat Terformed his duties. He has some- duties to pet form which are very important, and it is essential to the well-being of the service that be should perform them ; the inspection of the troops, and a great deal of duty at Wool wiCh, particularly the examination of all the men for dis charges; there is a great deal which could not be done :otherwise, and particularly in the relations of the Board. of Ordnance to the military force uuder the Ordnance ; it is very material there should be a military officer constantly at that. Board." • • Now he (Sir H. H.) maintained, that after that opinion it was unnecessary to say one word in sup port of the determination to w hi c h G overnment had come. The Gallant General, after alluding more particularly to the evidence, hoped the House would do them the credit to believe, that neither .the opi nion of the Duke of Wellington nor his, were given for the occasion. Ihe Finance Committee of 1817, 1818, and 1819, a period of peace, had paid every attention to the Board of Ordnance, but did not, in the, slightest degree, recommend the abolition of the office. of Lieutenant-General. Indeed, so far back cis 1751, the duties of that office were laid do%vri With as much precision as at present. lie was aware that he might be met' 'with an argument, de rived from the fact that the Lieutenants General had been absent from the country, and that therefore his presence at the Board could be dispensed with ; but upon this point they had the evidence Of the Duke of Wellington, and if the Members Of the Fineness Committee had determined to found their Report upon evidence, and not upon the Report of the Mi litary. Commissioners, why, he would 'ask, did they not.summon the late Surve:or-General and Clerk s of the Ordnance ?—(Hear, hear.)—lt might be said that the absenee of Lord Beresford justified the con clusion to which. the Committee had come. But the contrary was the fact; for he, after an absence of three months, knowing what inconvenience must be occasioned by it, suggested that -a successor shoutd he appointed.; and in fact the office was offered at. Sir George Murray,. After the most careful con sideration of this question, he (Sir Henry Hai alinge)' was now of decidedly the same opinion before, the House as lie bad been before the Committee ; and with the same sincerity he now de clared that, in his judgment, the office of Lieut. General of the Ordnance was necessary. The Board of Ordnance had all through acted in a manner quite consistent with the praises that the Finance Com mittee had been' pleased to bestow on there. And never in one instance did they continue an office that. had- ceased to be necessary. The salary of Lieutenant-General was now reduced from 1,500/, to 1,2004 The recommendation of t h e C omm i ttee as , to other . reductions had been assented to, and a sum of: 9,093/. had, been taken from different sala ries' and -even while th e c omm i ttee were sitting, the Master-Gener a l of the Ordnance had effected reductions to the amount of 9,000/. The Right Hon. Secretary•concluded . hey moving that a sum, not exceeding 24,935/.,, be granted to his Majesty, for defraying the expellees of the salaries of Master- General, and of the other officers of the Board of Ordnance for 1828, a sum of 2.5,000/. having already been voted on account, for that purpose. Sir H. PARNELL—The Committee had, after looking attentively through all the evidenee, decided , by the 'largest majority that had appeared upon any question which came under their consideration, that the. office of Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance was unnecessary. The Hon-Member, after stating that the military branch of the Ordnance; as well as that of the %Engineers employed about building,.was too great, proposed; ns an amendment, that instead of 24,935/., the vote he'redueed to 24,3351. Sir EDWARD OWEN Opposed the amendment. General 'task SCOYNE waaatit4oss to know the meaning of the Hon. •Metuber stho . moved the amendment, for he appeared to wish'that the Lieut- General should be removed, and another General be appointed in his place. Instead of dispensing with di e n o subject,tz a ie ( i mlla ned u the R that office, it Wo u ld,. i n hi s o pi n io n , be b e tt er to re duce the'staff in Irelantl,wl 4 l l e . re th a s L . ipeeurtedriaaynto-nGiye,n,seo nd commanded only 2,000 men, while the Lieuten ant-General o f th e Ordnance, in - addition to hi s duties at the' Board, commanded a corp s o f 9 ,000 men, and Tor both was paid that, with resl o e f et dt . to emolument, ojlnnfcnt fo tr e , ) 1 the was Li par with 'a LieuteriantsGeneral on the Staff. Sir H. PARNELL said, the H on. Member was l only e lo o en y a a l of 'A r tillery. Sir H. HARDINGE d enied the correct ness * o f that assertion of the Ilon. Ba ronet .. Th e Li eut.- General went, do wn to Woolwich when requisite, and there perf ormed all ' the functions of a General Officer. guit thee ignorant te Mr. BANKES contended that the recommenda tion of the Finance Co • l mmittee ought to have weight in preference to any authority that could he cited. Sir G. CLERK said, that the duties of the, Mister-General Were so naativ, and so complicatr s t tts - to ierid r it impossible for him to attend tai alt ~ths minute detailsof the Ordnance Departme nt _, t Rear, litar) :l7 4he performance of which neces sar il y devolved upon the • Lieut.-General. The efficierici of the artillery, in the absence of the Lieut.-General .(Sir H. Clinton)had been relied on as a proof that the presence of that Officer was not necessary to keep that distinguished corps in a proper state—but its efficiency was the consequence of the state of perfection in which that Gallant officer had left it.— (Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member proceeded to contend that the Lieut.-General was an officer who could not be dispensed with, and that the greatest. possible inconvenienc e would result to the service were the number of the Board of Officers reduced. Mr. MAI3ERLY- contended. at crrnnt