The Sun. — London, England, 1824-02-28 00:00:00

Judge before whom the indictment had been tried, and he should have felt ashamed of referring to any other authority.— The Hen. Member lead net been content with sending up his opinion ; lie had sent up the whole case, with tUe evidence, and had said, " Do what you think fit." His opinion (Mr. Peel) had been that mercy could not consistently be recoturnended.— Into the reasons for that opinion, he should nor - now detain the House by entering ; hut he thought it right to say that, in his view, the sentence was a lenient one ; and he postponed further detail until he saw what became of the petition. Mr. LITTLETON thought the complaints of the peti tioner groundless. There could not be a more zeeious, able, and intelligent Magistrate than his Hon. and Learned Friend,agains, whose conduct the petitioner complained. Be bad some right to tir.d fault with the manner in which the Hon. and Learned Member had brought the petition forward. Surely he ought at least to have taken care to gee that all tire allegations were well grounded and supported by testimony of s...fficKnt charac ter. The Hon. and Learned Member seemed to have identified himself too closely with the feelings of the petitioner, and to have accepted,without due examitunion and caution,the charges against his lion. anti [.earned Friend. The Magistrates had done more justice to Mr. C. Plint than the lion. and Learned Gentleman had done to the Magistrates. They at least took the precaution of obtaining a statement of the case from the Se cretary of State's Office, and had looked into the evidence with the closest circumspection. Another of the Magistrates, Mr. Clare, had desired him to declare to the House, that he was most anxious to take his share in whatever blame, might - attach to the conduct of the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions. There was not a word of the charge in which this (sentleman did not concur. The name of Sir Oswald Mosley was another pledge of the propriety and justice of the conduct purged by the Bench of Magistrates, than whom there coniclnot hr a more upright and conscientious man. Had there been a different tneaenre of justice dealt out to Mr. Charles Flint from that which was visited upon his accomplices. who were men in the lowest wails of life--shoema%ere, tailors, and cordwaiucrs— there Would have been just cause for complaint. He opposed the bringing up the petition. - Mr. STURGES BOURNE could not consent to allow the petition to be - brought up. His objection was this—that the Hon. and Learned Member alleged no injustice attributable to the corruption of the Magistrates. If the petition did allege corruption, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did, then this was not the proper tribunal for the appeal. The Court of King's Bench was the Court to which the petitioner ought to have - taken his complaint. The gravamen of the charge was net against the summary nature and arbitrary conduct of the jurisdiction, but aguinst the finding of the Jury—a matter upon which the House could not erect itself into a tribunal of appeal, because the consequence would be the most extreme in courehi-nce. HUME warned the House against shutting its doors to petitioners. His Hon and Learned Friend had offered that the allegations should be established upon oath, not merely of the petitioner himself, but by other parties. His lion and Learn , ed Friend had therefore been hardly treated in the observations of the Gentlemen opposite, by the endeavour to mix him up with the complaint of grievances in the petition. He readily listeded to and credited the statement of the A ttorney-Gener al , as far as regarded the conduct of the Chairman of the Sessions, especi ally,when it was supported by the testimony of so many other Honourable Gentlemen around him. If the petition were broughtup,therefore, in. the present state of facts, perhaps the House would be bound in fairness to oppose it—a question which could not, however, be decided until the petition was read. The proper course,- at present, would be to allow his lion. and Learned Friend to withdraw the petition, till the al legations should be confirmed upon oath, and then allow him to ,present it again.—(" No," from the Ministerial benches.) Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY had signed the resolution of the Magistrates passed in approbation of the conduct of the Chairtran, and concurred in every - thing advanced by the Attor ney-General upon the same subject. lie had, however, made one reservation, which had not been strictly observed—namely, that the resolution should not be directly published. His rea son for thinking it unfit for present publication was, that the conduct of his worthy and excellent friend, the Chairman, had been attacked in on e o f th e j ourna ls in a m a nner which he would not stigmatize with any particular epithets at present, beceunte it was likely to become the subject of judicial decision would only say that the attack was such as no person of honour and sound feeling could suffer to past unnoticed, or without calling for the decision of a Court of J ustice upon his conduct. He could not accede to withdrawing the petition, because the conduct of the Magistrates, which he thought un in:Pettehable, was concerned too deeply in the discussion ; and lie asserted, without fear of contradiction, that in all England there could not be a teat of more meritorious Magistrates than those of the county of Stafford. Ste R. WILSON wondered at the proposition of the Hon.. Mexber fur Suirey—that the House ought not to receive the if true, for fear that other Magistrates should be at treeked in settle distant time with charges of malversation, who were neither orators nor rhetoricians. The Attorney-General op potted the bringing up the petition, because he watt prepared to deny the allegations. He (sir R. Wilson) knew nothing of . I.lle pe:ition, and wished to learn its contents by hearing it read. rii , tt was the right of the people.of England, and he would not inflow this attempt to subvert it without opposing it, and de though he should stand alone, that there should still be access to the house for their petitions. Mr. C. WYNN was convinced that this petition ought not to be received. It was the duty of every Member to be pre pared to vouch for the contents of a petition before presenting it the House.—(Loud cries of 44 No, no.")--Hon. Members had no right to interrupt him in addressing the Chair, and he called for its protection by enforcing the General Order. Ile contended that no individual Member had a right to present a "petition to the House without pledging himself to the contents of the petition—( 4 • No, no, no")—that it contained nothing disrespectful to the House.—(Hear, hear !)—When Hon. Members were disposed to apply that kind of contradiction to his observation, they ought, at least, to take care to hear all that he had to say; it would be a much more safe and judi cious course. He expatiated on the general danger and incon venience of allowing appeals from the jurisdictions of the county to the House, and upon this principle opposed the bringing up of the petition. Mr. BRIGHT had not a single doubt of the truth of all that had been urged in defence of the conduct of his excel lent and very worthy friend, the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of Staffordshire. But throwing aside all personal feeling and consideration connected with this subject, he called upon the House, and especially upon the Country Gentlemen present., to reflect deeply how far the treatment recommended for this petition agreed with the right of the people to present petitions to Parliament, which right was secured to them by the Great Charter. He would assent to the withdrawing of the petition, but not to the opposition made to bringing it up. He never would .consent to so dan gerous an encroachment - on the people's rights. Were they really prepared to say, that because a magistrate happened to be a Member of the House, that the House would not hear any petition accusing him of malversation ? The Hon. Gentleman said, that a Member presenting a petition was bound to take care that there was nothing disrespectful to the Douse in it. Would any one say that- this petition was disre spectful to the House, which sought the interference of the au thority of the House in a case of alleged oppression ? For what purpose did they sit there, if not to listen to the com plaints of the people ? It was said that the complaint in the petition, if true, was matter triable by the ordinary jurisdic tions. He allowed thal might be the more proper course ; but it was one thing to deny the truth of a petition or the propriety it its appeal, and it was quite another to refuse to hear it. It did not follow that they must adopt its suggestions, or that a .Umber might rot be prepared to refute the allegations in it, or that the House would not throw it out. But how could they • know the value of its contents without first hearing it ? Some laid that it ought- not to"be entertained or received, because it was an appeal front the common jurisdictions, for which there 1 was remedy in the courts of law. He understood that a part I of the prayer of the petition was to alter an oppressive law. The Petitioner complained that he had suffered under the op pression of that law. Would the House, therefore, refuse to hear him, because he asked of them to repeal that oppression ? The allegations might be true or false ; but he offered grounds for - his complaints, and petitioned for a remedy. All that was required in the first instance, was for the House to listen. It was an appeal, not to their judicial, but to their legislative functions.. To refuse leave to bring the petition up was op pressive. He hoped that the country gentleman would at least have the discretion to shun the Agitation of a question of such dangerous consequences as that which would be inevitably involved in a refusal. There was a safe course left for them, which was to allow the petition to be withdrawn.—(Murmurs.) Mr. CANNING wished to know if the Hon. and Learned Member was inclined to withdraw the petition? Mr. DENMAN said, that some of the Hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had refused to suffer it to be withdrawn ; and un der those circumstances he declined saying what he would have done had the matter been left to himself. Mr. CANNING wished that the petition could be with drawn. If pressed, however, he must oppose the bringing it up, on the single ground of it containing a prayer for an in:- pessibility,—namely, that the House would reconsider add re verse the verdict of a Jury. , Mr. PEEL said, that the Hon. and Learned Member seem ed to be displeased with him for not reversing the sentence. of the Quarter Sessiona. With regard to his own individual feel ings, he could have no objection to the adoption of that course by the petitioner with a view to a revision of the case ; and if the petition were withdrawn, the case wonid stand just as fa vourably as before for that purpose.. Mr. S. WOR'rLEY entreated his Um. Friend the Member for Surrey not to persist in his opposition to the withdrawing the petition. Mr. H. SUMNER said, that this was so great an abuse of the privilege of petitioning, that he could not allow the peti tion to be withdrawn. _ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that it appeared to him the argument brought forward by the Hon. Member for surrey would apply, if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman persisted in pressing e lhe House to receive the peti- . ion, but it had no application if the Hon. and Learned Gen ttleman eishecl to withdraw the petition. Mr. DEN MA N said, though he was aware it-was not quite regular, yet he trusted the House would indulge him with a few words. it had been supposed that he had mixed up personal feelings with the statements of the petition, but he had stated no opinion of any disputed facts. He certainly did entertain a strong opinion,as to the trial and sentence, which he should never be backward at expressing. Th - epossibility of a petition containing wtiat was false was no reason why . the House of Commons should reject it. It was enough that the petitioner felt himself aggrieved ; and if the petition was couched in re spectful language to the House, and stated what the member • conceived to be a grievance, with all deference to the Right Ha. Defender of the privileges'of that House, it was the duty of Members to present such. petitions. It was not an answer to say there was a legal remedy; and that the petitioner was to go and wait at the doors of the Court of Chancery till all the ap peals there were disposed of. Against ship-money the House had entertained a petition, though the Judges had given their opinions (honestly for aught he knew) that ship-money was legal. It had been put to him, as presiding sometimes in a Court of Justice, how he should feel if such a petition were pre sented arainst him. He trusted there was not a Magistrate in that House who would object twentertain a petition, if it were imagined that any party had been. either unfairly or unjustly treated. He was, however, willing, seeing the temper of the Ilouse, to withdraw the petition, and he did it on this ground, —that he feared the House would establish the precedent that such a petition ought not to be received. The question was then put, and the petition withdrawn. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY. The CHANCELLOR ,if the EXCHEQUER then moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY had not understood the Chan cellor of the Exchequer on a former evening in stating his plan for the reduction of the interest on the 4 per cents.. to have mentioned the period at which the final payment would take place to the dissentients. It would be a great convenience to the stockholders to have some idea of the time when that would take place. The . .CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the Re solution on that point went to this—that all those persons who did not agree should in October be paid one-third of their stock. He certainly had not stated at what period it would be conve nient to pay off a further proportion, because thatmust depend on the means possessed by Government at the time. What was meant by the mention of a subsequent payment, of 10 per cent. was, that no less sum should be paid off._ ORDNANCE ESTIMATES. Sir H. HARDINGE said, that in rising to lay before the House the Estimates for the Ordnance Service of the year, he felt gratified at not having to trespass upon much of their time, because on almost every head there was a considerable dimi nution. The total sum of the Ordnance Estimates was 978,3421. being less than last year 91,658/. If from that was deducted the sum for the Ordnance Barracks 24,0001., the difference in favour of this year would be 67.0001. Upon the Ordinary Department there was a saving of 15;588/., composed of 6,000!. less for the Civil Eestimates, 1,500/. less for the Military Academy, 3,000!. less for Artillery Clothing, and 'some other reductions. Upon the Extraordinaries there was a reduction of 55,0001., but that lie should state was rather to be considered as a suspension of ex. penditure than as a saving. The permanent savings were 5,000/. in the Storekeeper's department, 6,000/. in stores, and 1,5001. in small arms. The next, being the third item, was the (In. provided, which was r e d u ced to 1,090/. less than last year by 9,5721. This saving was to be attributed to the intro duction of short accounts, and he was glad that it had been effected, as it was a branch of which the House was always jealous, because it was an expenditure necessarily incurred without the sanction of the House. These three items would shew a total charge, after deducting 141,0001. for the savings and old stores, of 616,0001. for the effective charge of the land service of the Ordnance, being 97,0001. less than what the Fi nance Committee of 1317 recommended. If they further de_ ducted the 24,000/. for Ordnance barracks transferred to the Barrack Department, the Estimates of the year would be below what that Finance Committee stated the permanent establish_ ment could be reduced to, by 55,0001. This bad been done by the very great reduction that bad been carried into effect in every department. There were two hundred and thirty clerks less, which greatly augmented the duty of the others. The next point was the Barrack Department, in which there was no in crease, although there appeared a difference of 14,000/. But from it there ought to be deducted the sum of 16,000/. which had been transferred from the Ordnance. In order to shew the diminution which had taken place is the Barrack establish ments since the war, he would state that there were at that' time barrack accommodations for 167,000 men, which was now reduced to 42,000, making the very considerable reduction of 125,000. The expenditure on this head during the war amounted to 620,0001. and was now brought to 120,000/. ; so that there had not only been so large a reduction of men, but a saving of half a million of expenditure. In the Estimate for Ireland, which amounted to 134,376/., there was an excess over last year of 23,000/. But if they deducted 5,000/. which had been transfer red from the Ordnance Barracks, and 10.000/. caused by the repairs of barracks in Ir e l an d , according' to the recommend ation of the Commissioners, the difference would be accounted for. The Commissariat of Stores was the next and last branch to which he should have to call the attention of the House.— The estimate was 182,7951., being 90,0001. more than last year. The difference arose from a cause which he was sure the House would willingly sanction. It had been found necessary to have 2-1,000 single iron bedsteads for the soldiers, who, during the war, were put into double bi r th s , f or t h e sake of convenience. But now it was desirable that they should =lie more properly accommodated. Besides this, there was an increased charge for stores for convicts sent to New South Wales and Sierra Leone, which were civil regulations, and not within the power of the Ordnance Board. In all other parts of the vote there was a decrease. These were all the observations he had to make to the Committee, and he should now conclude by moving that a sum not exceeding 47,2331. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the salaries of the Master-General, Officers, and Clerks, at the civil establishments at the Tower and Pall-mall. Mr. HUME contended that the Finance Committee of 1817, gave only an approximation to what was to be expected by proper reductions. The reduction was not so great as it ap peared to be, because credit was taken for the stores, which lie had always c ont en d e d oug ht no t t o b e the case; and he under stood front the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year that the amount should be carried to the Ways and Means as was done with the Navy. He allowed great credit for what had been done with the Unprovided, and he hoped it would con tinue. The whole amount of decrease, however, was not more than 92,0001. compa re d w ith th e E s ti ma t es of 1819, and this was not what the country had a right to expect. The expenditure was now two-thirds more than that of his golden era, 1792. In 1792 it was 442,0001. ; in 1817 it was 1,284,0001.; in 1319 it was 1,212,0001.; in 1821 it was 1,326,000/4 in 1822 itwas 1,244,000/4 in 1823 it was 1,217,0001. ; and now it wa.s come down to 1,119,000. The gallant Officer had spoken of the great reduction ; which had taken place; but in this vote for the establishment of the Tower and Pall-Mall, there had been no reduction. He was confident they might save one-third by consolidating the two offices, which was recommended in the Reports of the Corn mission of Military Inquiry. He last year called the attention of the House to the office of the Lieutenant of the Ordinance, and he now begged the attention of the Right Hon. Secretary I -for Foreign Affairs to what he was going to say upon that sub ject. The Right lion. Gentleman met him upon that occasion with the necessity of the office, and argued that the Board of Ordnance could not go on without it, and it was upon that ground that the House supported him. But he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman how much the Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance bad been at his post in the last year. He had been out of the country, in Portugal, during that time, and yet the Board had gone on perfectly well without him. lie had been informed, however, that another Lieutenant-General had been appointed within the last week. The result had shewn that he was right, and the House wrong, when they rejected his motion. If he was confirmed in his views by experience, he had a right to call upon the House for support in what he was about to propose. The Military Commissioners recommended the uniting of the two departments of the Tower and Pall-mall, and of thereby saving 15,0001, In 1797 the expence of these two establishments only amounted to 18,000!., and now they cost 47,0001., in time of peace. This was the first time that the House had been told that the Estimates were brought down to their lowest point, and the question now to decide was, whether the presenr arrangements should be permanent. He thought they should not he ; and if the Housecut them down to 36,0001., being double their amount in 1797, they would find the office new-modelled in a week.— The Hon. Member then made some remarks upon the salary and fees of the first Storekeeper, and concluded by moving a reduction of 10,0001. upon the vote. Sir H. HARDINGE said that the lion. Member had mixed up so many objections in his speech, that he did not know what points he meant in reality to attack The reduction in the department immediately before the House had been such, since the year 1818, that out of 118 clerks, 26 had been reduced, notwithstanding that the business had been greatly increased.— He thought, therefore, that the proposition of the Hon. Member would not receive the sanction of the House. With regard to the Lieut.-General, although the Noble Lord had been absent upon private business, he was . so upon the most urgent necessity. It was well known that Lord Beresford had long been connected with the Portuguese Government, and that upon his return from Rio Janeiro to the Tagus, the Revolutionists being in power, would not permit him to land. It was in June last, that the Noble Lord went to Lisbon, and in November the Master- General wrote to.request his return on account of the duties of his office, to which Lord Beresford replied by sending his re-' signation. So far, not the slightest objection of a personal nature could apply to the Noble Lord. The duties of the Board had, in his Lordship's absence, been performed by the Master-General, and no inconvenience had arisen on account of his not being present. His Hon. Friend behind him, (Sir Ulysses Burgh) had passed eight. or ten hours in the hardest labour every day, and he himself had been prevented from leaving town on. the same account. If it was asked why. the first resignation of Lord Beresford was not received, he an swered that the very important services which his Lordship had rendered to the Board, rendered it extremely desirable that he should continue to be connected with it. Last week however, a letter was received from Lisbon stating his Lordship's inabi lity to return. Accordingly the Master-General had named Sir Charles Murray to fill the office, and his choice had been sanc tioned by his•Majesty.—(Hear, hear!)—The removal alluded to by the Hon. Member had already taken place to a partial de gree. A considerable reduction bad already taken place upon the expenditure, though not.upon the vote. AIL FIUME replied. He contended that the sheaving of how much had been reduced did not prove that no more ought to he reduced- The Votes of the House were not always right, merely because they were the Votes ; nor were the official statements of Ministers always accurate. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the. Motion - 89 For the Amendment 19 Majority -—7 O The vote for the Royal. Laboratory was put and agreed to. X 35,000 was voted for the Civil Establishment after a few words from Mr. HUME. £4,143 for Master-gunners, &c. and 67,8341. for the Royal Engineers, Sappers, and Miners were voted without obser vation. On the questioA for voting 247,2081. for the Royal Artillery, Mr. lIUME said the proportift of Artillery to the rest of the Army was not a just one. The Artillery was sufficient for a much larger Army than even that which we kept on foot, and was twice the number of that which we had at the beginning of the late war with France. It was, in his opinion, impossible to maintain that such a force of Artillery was necessary. The Artillery was also, he thought, brigaded very expensively ; and he had no doubt that a contraction of the nine battalions into six would cause a considerable saving. He did not wish to say a word against the merits of the Artillery. They were a deserving And 'a very efficient body; but we might have too much of a good thing.—(A laugh.) Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, the amount of the force could not be at all reduced below its present standard without great inconvenience. - The Artillery was the only corps which, in the time of war, could not be aided by the militia. Mr. lIUME said his remarks were made upon the statement put forth by Ministers themselves in his Majesty's Speech, de claring•that there was no chance of war. The vote was then agreed to. On the vote for 29,5901. for Horse Artillery— Mr. HUME said an appointment had recently taken place in this branch:of the service which had called for much remark and had occasioned some dissatisfaction. Ile alluded to the appointment of Sir Benjamin Bloomfield to the rank of Colonel- Commandant: He was an Ambassador, at present, abroad ; and had been put over the heads of other officers, although from his other situation he could not attend to his military duties This had in many quarters been looked upon as a grievance. _ _ - Sir 11. lIARDINGE said, that by a regulation made in the year 1814, all officers were to take rank in the artillery accord ing to their brevet, and not their regimental rank. Sir Ben jamin Bloomfield was a General officer, and his appointment came under this regulation in the ordinary course. The pre sent Master-General of the' Ordnance had caused this regula tion to be altered, but of course its alteration could not justly have a retrospective effect. By the new regulation, Sir Alex. Dixon, a young officer of spirit and ability, would be the one put first into active service, though under the old regulation this could not take place. Mr. HUME said he had another remark to make. Formerly, officers in the Artillery rose only by seniority ; but now, he understood this was altered, and that they were allowed to ex change. He wished to know what had been the extent of this alteration, the number of officers who had availed themselves of it, and the additional expence which it had occasioned ? Sir H. HARDINGE said the alteration alluded to took place last year to relieve the- difficulty occasioned by the very slow promotion in the artillery. Those officers, who were of twenty years etanding, were allowed to sell, but only to un attached officers on half-pay. The commissions of several officers in the army, had thus become extinguished The num ber, he believed, was fourteen, being the number of exchanges into the artillery. On the balance, the whole of the increased expence attending this- beneficial arrangement was 1011.— (Hear, hear !) Mr. HUME said he was satisfied with the explanation, and only wished to see the arrangement extended to the Marines. Sir G. CLERK said, that such an arrangement as the Ma rines was in progress, and would have been completed before this, had it not been for th e regretted illness of the First Lord There were constitutional reasons for keep oifngtlttheeAsdermviircaelat - Mr. HUME said he should always protest against the al leged constitutional reasoning of the Hon. Baronet who had, just sat down. Sir ISAAC COFFIN said, lie well recollected when the Honourable Member for Aberdeen complained that Ministers werir. HLA eabout r t i o t t; aursid turn the M arines into an army.—(Hear, hear!) 3 lie merely complained the Marines were not rewarded as they ought to be. He was against increasing their number. Sir explained, and the vote was then agreed The following votes were then a greed to, without any re- I t S o A . AC COFFIN re mark, viz. On the for u the Medical fbr X 1,788 ifor the Field Train Department. for Civil Officers, Professors, and Cadets at Woolwich, . MM r. HUE observed, that a reduction in the number of gs7ol Establi s h ment .. Cadets had been long since promised; but he did not observe a reduction of more than four in the last three years. Bir H. HARDINGE said there h a d been a reduction of at least twenty within that-time. Th ere were many young me n at this establishment fully qualified, who could not obtain com missions, in consequence of the prefer e nce given to the em dpoloaybntieanwtaorfe o t fli ha c t e f r o s r o m n er h l a y if t - h P e aY s:rtil T le h ry e o l fli i t n e . rs 3 w le e m re be n r ev w er as put no on iv h i al r. f He p u ity 3 , i s though aid he now th they were. certainly approved of the employment of officers who had served , in preference to that of those boys. Sir H. HARDINGE said it w as t h at j ust pre f erence w hi c h caused the number of Cadets to remain so undiminished. The vote was then agreed to. On the question for 75,47 41 ., for the extraordinaries of the Ordnance-Office, Mr. HUME said, he 'hoped this vote would sooner or later (and the sooner the better), be reduced. The whole of the money laid out at Feversham he considered as entirely thrown away. He considered the same of the money laid out for Ca nada and the lonian Isles, which was an expence that ought to be borne by the inhabitants of those possessions. He hoped to see the vote reduced, though he should not propose a reduction this year.—The vote was agreed to. On the vote for 87,3361. for Ireland, • After a few words front Mr. HUME and Sir H. HARDINGE, Sir J. NEWPORT referred to the proposed survey of Ire land, which he thought would not be productive of any good, especially if it were to resemble that of England, which had been no less than 9 years in agitation. Mr. Got:Lau/tat, Colonel TRENCH, and Mr. D. GILIIERT, spoke shortly in approbation of the surrey ; and the vote was then agreed to. - On the question for 312,572/. f'r the Half-pay for Ireland, a few words were exchanged between Mr. HuM and Sir H. HARDINGE, respecting the allowance for Stores, the purport of which we could not collect. Sir JOHN NEWPORT complained of the expence attend ing the keeping up of a large establishment, which was of no use whatever ; 9001. a year was paid for the use of the land alone. He had no doubt a discerning officer was appointed to the station ; but it would be much more advisable to give him a liberal retired allowance, and save the rest of the expence. Sir H. lIARDINGE said the ground was let out for the 9001. a year, and the money was saved. The vote was agreed to. On the question, for 48,1401. for superannuated allowances, Mr. HUME said this was the first, for many years, in which any reduction had taken place in this expence. He hoped it would in time be still further reduced. After a few words from Sir F. OntataxNE v . , the vote was agreed to. • • On the question for 1,4*.5)1. for Fees at the Exchequer, Mr. HUME said this was an improper and absurd ex pence. It was an expence incurred by the country on the payment of its own money; and he really haped that com mon sense would be allowed to prevail, and that the expence would be abandoned. *He believed that 20 or 30,0001. was incurred on this account as to the army alone. He trusted the Secretary of the Treasury was able t 6 make some communica tion on the subject. • • Mr. HERRIES said these fees were the perquisites of cer tain patent offices, and were, of course vested interests in the 1 persons entitled to receive them. The Treasury did all in their power to avoid the expence, but the subject was one of too di . Mcult a nature to be discussed incideistally on a question like the present. Mr: HUME said, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would grant him a Committee, he (Mr. H.) could enter fully on the subject within a month.--(A laugh.) Mr. HERRIES said he had forgotten to observe that these fees forinedpart of the salaries of various public officers. The vote was agreed to. On the question fbr 114,531/. for the Barrack Department— Mr. HUME said the country was now really studded with barracks. The House was yearly called upon to grant increased sums for keeping them up.—[ The Hon. Member here went into some calculations of the comparative expences of former years.]—Many Officers in the army, he had no doubt, would take the situation of Barrack Master for the house-rent alone. It was therefore most extravagant:to give some of these Bar rack Masters 15s. a day. There were many filling these situa tions who had never been in the army ; and some who resided 100 miles from the barracks. He would ask any Member of that House, however determined he might be to support Ministers through thick and thin, whether he thought 65,0001. this year a necessary expence for barracks ? 30,0001. had been voted last year, and. 50,0001. the year before. There was also 7,0001. for a Riding School, at St. John's Wood. Why did not the one at Pimlico answer the purpose ? Unless the . matter were satisfactorily explained he should propose a reduction. Sir HENRY HARDINGE defended the vote. The Bar rack Masters were paid as low as possible, when it was consi dered that respectable men were necessary to fill the situa tion. Very few were paid 15s. a-day ; there were some at 10s., some at 7s. 6d., and some at ss. A reduction of 4,000/. had taken place in only one year. The Barracks having been built during the war, ought surely to be kept in repair ; they were so kept on the lowest scale. If the Hon. Member would point out any specific abuse or extravagance, the Ordnance would be much obliged to him ; but to say in general terms that the vote was too much, was advancing what it was difficult to answer except in the same general way. The establisnment in St. John's Wood was necessary to preserve an uniform system of riding all through the army ; and that place was selected from motives of economy, there already being a barrack there. The size of the establishment should be taken into considera tion—it was able to contain no less than 7,000 men and horses. Col. DAVIES thought the expence of this department was enormous. It was too large; and was too highly paid. Much better would it be to allow the barracks to decay than to incur such an expence for repairing, with so distant a prospect of ' using them. The Hon. a nd Gallant Officer said there was no specific complaint made; but it would be difficult on this Esti mate to make such a complaint seeing that the money was put in a lump. If the eyes of Parliament were not directed to the subjects, they would find the estimates again increase to an enormous size. Sir H. HARDINGE could only say, in answer to the Hon. Member, that the Board of Ordnance employed the most dis tinguished Artillery and Engineer Officers in the estimates which they sanctioned. Sir J. NEWPORT said, he was convinced there was a vast number of barracks in Ireland which had been improperly erected. If then they had the details of the estimate before them, they would find that such money was laid out on build ings which ought to be burnt to the ground. Many of them, indeed, were built as a sort of job, and constructed of unsea soned materials. Mr. GOULBURN reminded the House that, no longer ago than last Session, a Return was laid on the Table of a distinct Account of every Barrack in Ireland. It was, therefore, in the power of any Hon. Member to make what objections he pleased to these buildings, and which, no doubt, would be done if any fault were to be found. Sir J. NEWPORT and Mr. GOULBURN explained. Mr. HOBHOUSE made some objections to the continuance of the King's Mews as a Barracks. He was sorry to see so much apathy upon this subject. Honourable Gentlemen opposite knew very well, that one or two years ago they had fifteen or twenty divisions upon this subject of Barracks, and now they could not get up one division.—(A laugh.) —He con tended it was necessary for the country to know that the Ho u se had altered their minds on this subject. Since 1815, in times peace,of eßigwh st Hon.wer the were cGentleman a barrack, becau se t h ey were convenientopposite would n o t d eny that the King ' s M to act upon any occasion against the people. This was uncon stitutional, and what our ancestors would never permit. The modern inhabitants of the neighbourhood of these barracks had been much disturb ed b y the military practice of beating drums. H e a ltogether disapproved of the p ract i ce of keep i ng Sir H. HARD INGE be gg ed to observe, that deducting the C o nstitutional question , the whole speech of the Hon. Member up solarg . e a s t a nding army, and hedgin g t h em round in for tifications was founded on error. If the Hon. Member had looked accu. rately through the estimates, he w ou ld h ave f oun d that t h ere was a saving of 2,000/. in that very arrangement which the Hon. Member found objectionable. With regard to the obser vations the Hon. Member had made as to the separation of troops from the citizens, he begged to remind him that it was the people who first demanded that separation, and not the sol diers or the Government. Neither could he suppose the Hon. Gentleman would wish to see the soldier billitted more exten sively than he WM; in the low public-houses in the purlieus of Westminster, and places which were the resort of every species of bad company, and the sink of debauchery and vice. He did not think the soldier would be made .a better subject, or a more peaceable citizen, by being domesticated in Tothill-fields, or what was called Petty France. Sir ROBERT HERON contended, that the difficulties alluded to by the Hon. and Gallant Officer were created by the practice of keeping up a large standing army in time of peace. Whenever they departed from the wise course of their ances tors, they were sure to be involved in difficulty. Mr. HUME maintained• that there was an increase in the charge for the Barrack Depar tment thi s year. Th e B arrac k - Masters, very well ' were too highly paid. He thought 7be taken from the charge for Ba r r ac k. 11:11115aa4s0ttee179 might, in his opinion, and 7,0001. from the charge for the Riding School at St. John's Wood. He should therefore propose that the pre sent vote be reduced from 114,0001. to 100,0001. Upon this motion the Committee divided— For the Motion - - 38 Against it - - - 95 Majority in favour of the Resolution —57 Upon the vote of 182,7951; being proposed for the Barrack Department, Mr. HUME said, he thought it quite farcical for the House to be granting votes upon such vague and general estimates. They ought to know hew this vote was decided, and why the Commissariat was charged with the Store Department. Sir. H. HARDINGE expressed his conviction that this Vote was best charged under the head of the Commissariat. He was satisfied that the present arrangement was beneficial to the country. Mr. MABERLEY had no doubt that there was a far greater number of Storehouses than was necessary for the good of the service, and that the country was put to considerable expence, which might be saved. Sir H. HARDINGE assured the Hon. Member that strict inquiries had been instituted to ascertain whether these store houses could be dispensed with ; and that the result was, that they could not. Whilst they had so many places in the globe to send stores to, it would be impossible to do without store. houses in different parts convenient to the shipping. Mr. MABERLEY explained. Mr. HUME thought that 50,0001. might be saved upon this head of Storehouses. They ought not to be under the Com missariat Department; and he contended that the House ought to know how much was paid for each separate place. Sir H. HARDINGE stated that 12,0001. of this vote was for the liberated Blacks; 8,0001. for fees, presents to the Indians, and 20,0001. for the Convicts of New South Wales. The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be re ceived on Monday next. USURY LAWS. Sir R. HERON begged to ask the Learned Sergeant (Or slow) whether at that late hour, and in the exhausted state of the House, many Members having attended already 9 hours, he proposed to go into the Committee upon the Usury Laws Repeal Bill It was really to be hoped that the Learned Ser geant did not, seeing the vast importance of the subject, the extreme anxiety of numerous opponents to the measure, and the probable length to which the discussion-would run. Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW thought if the Hon. Baronet had been present on Friday last, he would not have asked this ques tion. He had then postponed it till to-day, upon the express understanding that it should now come on. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For. the Motion - 85 Against it - 31 Majority for going into the Committee --54 On re-entering the gallery we found Mr. ROBERTSON on his legs. tracing the existence of usury laws up to the time of the ancient Romans, and opposing the re peal of those now in force in this country. - The borrower, as it seemed to him, was always a fit object for protection, inasmuch as that he acted from necessity, the lender had no such plea. It was a gross error to suppose that there were no usury laws in France, or Holland, or Germany ; no doubt the laws were evaded occa sionally in those countries, as they were-in this; but by no means to such an extent as some Hon. Gentlemen imagined. Let the House look at India, and see the state to which the natives were reduced by the want of a check upon the interest of money. Where usury was once permitted to get footing, there was "no end to its encroachments ; money was lent, not by the year, but by the month, the week, and the day. In China, where interest was limited only to 33 per cent., the wealth was all found collected in a few hands, and the mass of the people were ground down to the lowest state of misery and degradation• The witnesses examined before the Committe had almost SU' of them been interested parties; but there was not one who spoke to any inconvenience from the laws as they now stood; Mr. Rothschild was decidedly of opinion that there would be danger in their alteration. It was instanced as a proof, that throwing open the money. trade could do no harm, that on the interest was DOW lower than the sum arlowed by the State ; but though this was no doubt true as regarded the trans action of great capitalists, the lesser trader, it was well known, did not now get his discounts under five per cent. The Hon; Gentleman, after declaring his conviction that.the country hail not the slightest belief that the (louse would pass the Bill sat down by moving that it should be read a second time on that day six months. Captain MA BERLY supported the Bill; and was no more inclined to limit or interfere with the price of money than he would be to fix that of any other commodity. The laws as they now stood, every one knew, were practically evaded ; and he thought the value of money would always find its level accord ing to the supply and the d eman d. Mr. Alderman HEYGATE decidedly opposed the projected measure, and read a recommendation from a Committee 0 1 the House, dated the 30th of May, 1318, pointing out that time as a most fitting one for the repeal ,of the laws in ques tion. If that recommendation had been followed, he would put it to the House what would have been the case twa months after, when the change was made in the state of the currency. He heard of no incovenience from the laws as they stood : saw no petitions for their repeal. The witnesses examined before the Committee above stairs what were they ? Lawyers and capitalists —no people. else. Besides he, gene , rally speaking, attached no great weight to the evidence given before Committees. When a Gentleman brought a questioa forward in the House, he was permitted probably to name his own Committee; and then the Members of that Committee called witnesses whose views coincided with their own. IL' had himself been asked twenty times to come and giie evidence on particular committees; and if ever he had stated that hi: opinion differed from that of the friend applyine, the answer had been—" Oh, then you had better stay away."—(Hear, and laughter.)—He foresaw great difficulty in the common transae• tions of life from the want of a fixed-rate of interest. Guar dians and trustees, who had not got high rates, might be chal lenged with neglect of duty. Besides, the question was not, how would the measure affect the great monied men, but the small dealer who wanted accommodation. If a farmer went to a country bank for money, what was to prevent the banker from charging him any interest he pleased ? The man, perhaps• was known but at that one Bank; perhaps there was na other within a considerable distance. Again, with reference to the arrangements of Government, could any man doubt that if the usury laws had been repealed twenty years back, the National Debt would have been four or five, millions greater . than it was? We were in a situation now in which the re peal of the laws, perhaps, would do no great harm ; but we should not count upon remaining in that situation for ever. As to autho rities, they were not all on one side. There was a writer Of the name of Adam Smith, whose talents were once as inuch r renowned as any of those who had since written in favour o. unrestricted usury. There was one evil which lie admitted in the existing law—it imposed its . penalties . with great inequality. The fine was treble the amount of the loan. so that the fine for taking 20/. too much upon a loan Of 1,0001. would be 3,0001., while the fine for taking 501. too much interest on 100,0001. would be 300,000/. This enormous inc-. quality was highly obj ec ti ona bl e , oppressive, and absurd. Ile pledged himself, should this Bill fail, and no other Member took up the subject, to bring in a Bill for the more equitrble adjustment of the penalties of usury. He might be asked whY he did not support this Bill, which would save all further trouble on the subject. There was, a great difference in his apprehension between doing away with the laws which were essentially wise and well-founded, and doing away absurd and opprestive penalties imposed under those laws. Mr. C. W. WYNN attributed the usury laws, the wisdom and antiquity of which was so loudly vaun t e d, t o t h e sp i r it of medling interference, which formerly regulated cloth, corn, and other commodities, including poultry, once a subject of grave and deliberate legislation. As to the merits of antiquity, the usury must share it in common with the law which punished all the members, whether nearly or remotely related, of him who had committed a particular offence. In fact, they were beneath the enlightened spirit of legislation which characte rized the present age. That they were mainly inoperative was certain. Every one c ould p ro d uce i ns t ances t o prove it. he would content himself with one. He knew a gentleman urr whom a mortgage of forty years standing was about to be fore: closed, and though a fee simple to secure the money, he coal ( ' rate AA n o sd t at moo r apaiisusnei authorities, isoh. BiLei t ed o uw n ailmaddbst i sni t uesnoorttot e niit x :p, c cl e la.e p acn t :yd b mot y huuer c eminent mo nireliance annuity eesisl a ,t t ht aal l teu o nhp p tioss e n r o c e ei argu ment .was for ever overturned by Mr. Jeremy Bentham, in wale of as much ability as ever was displayed by the head an" convinces! statutes a t w t i b a st , htiminecnu,amsbceorrnede the f construction of the Committee of which the thet h hl a cel d ine complained, lie did not know what nwrif" pen e o n o n k ao . s bf . A oal l ni A d tyi e o s r mn ni t o ao : able and fit persons could have been called to it that the' e° , l- ; nent solicitors and those who had most experience in borro" n r 2 transactions. Mr. CALCRAFT strongly objected to urging this measure forward so late in the ev ening , t h roug h a t hi n an d ex h a usted House-_a measure which he would be hound to say was second in importance to none of the public interests. As this measure, had received the commendation and encouragement of five °` his Majesty's Ministers on the Last occasion, it was a great phi that they had not lent the House their assistance in the present discussion. If the Bill was fit to be carried into effect, it ought in short to be made a Government measure. There was'nu; thing which the House could do which would more deeply and extensively affect the community at large. What was it that was now proposed to them ? To alter a system of legislation which had been continued with increasing succes down to this time—which had operated a legislative reduction of interest from the time of Henry VIII., when legal interest was fixed at 10 per cent., to the reign of Queen Anne, when it was lowered to 5 per cent., each succeeding statute containing express re cognition of the wisdom of all the preceding, and the country manifestly growing in prosperity in proportion as the Legislas ture was successful in depressing the rate of interest. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite showed a wonderful degree of faith in this new proposition, considering his general dread Of change or innovation. As to authorities, he also had some to quote, which might serve tokeep the 27 persons who had voted 0 foolishly as he was said to have done, in countenance. Dr. Paley, in speaking of them; said, that the policy of the usury laws was to prevent the too rapid accumulation of wealth without industry—to enable traders to borrow money on easy terms, to carry on pursuits which would be profitable to the community , and to secure the power of raising money at moderate interest for the Government. He'could bear witness that this measure had already greatly excited the country. As to the case.min tioned by the Right Hon. Gentleman, how would this borrower be situated, if this Bill should past into a law ? Instead of 10 per cent. annuity interest, he would have to pay 10 per cent. us mortgage. As to Holland, undoubtedly the evidence shewed that usury was restrained in Holland; and they all very well jrneW that there were usury laws in France. The only precedent which he knew of, was one of ominous import, that of the French Can: vention of 1793, who resolved that money was merchandise, an", the confusion into which that one resolution threw that confuse°. country ;—he would not tire the House with the description- It was enough to say that the law passed the 7th 'of April: and was repealed the 4th of May. In like manner, should this Bill pass, the Honourable and Learned Serjeant would be renowned with posterity, and all the lenders of the present times. Huzza, for usury ! This Bill would be the signal for a general rise of interest, and the road would be opened for CaS full career of avarice —sordid, pitiful, base, mean, hatefsh avarice. The simplicity of five per cent. would be scouted- - -extortion would cease to be a vice, and solicitors who no" 1 refused to mingle in such transactions, would be eon]. polled to lend their abilities to the binding of the roost un righteous bargains ; the most remorseless usury would be reputable as the profits of productive and advantageous intius . try. He claimed at least, if the Bill should pasi, that it s hould be made a Government measure, and that it should go through a Committee of persons who would apply a more trying cours e of examination to it than any to be found in the esidence be fore the House. Mr. HUSKISSON said, lie could not conceive that it was at all the duty of his Majesty's Government to take the measure out of the hands of a Gent. who had brought it forward year afte r year, and was Chairman of a Committee appointed to inqui s r e ' into the subject. It was one on which men might differ, WO ' Out deserving any opprobrious names, and he had come to different conclusion from the Hon. Member for Warehaul,S The obloquy which at present attached to those who exacted more than the legal interest, was, under the present systernt necessarily paid for by the lender, who required harsher test° than if no such obligation existed. He was, therefore, &mit convinced, that the law as it stood was oppressive and injuri ous to the borrowers. The opposition to this measure seed'' ed to come principally from the landed interest ; but he was satisfied that in a course of years these laws were • more jurious to that interest than to any other. He attached s° much importance to the change of this law, by which the value of money was tied down in this country, that if th e s gentlemen who had mortgages at five per cent. would be satisfied with a clause that they were not to be affected by this law, he would be disposed to agree to it. It was said the re were usury laws in Holland and France; but he would as k were those laws enforced ? Was there any power there for 0 4 ' borrower to recover three times the amount of the money lent in the shape of penalties ? The Hon. Gentleman (iilr. eat. craft) praised the laws passed for the reduction of interest fro'