The Sun. — London, England, 1822-03-15 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE" OF LORDS, THURSDAY, M utcn 14. Earl HowE, late Viscount CURZON, took the oaths and his seat. His Lordship was intro- Suced by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY and Lord WHYTWORTH.—Mr. AULD presented the Annual - Report of the Penitentiary at Milbank.—Laid an the table. CIVIL LIST. Lord KING said, that it might be scarcely regular to allude to what had taken place in another House, hut he had seen that certain-re ductions were to be effected in some parts of 'the Civil List. 'One in particular; in which the ;Mo narch was concerned, wonid be highly gratifying to the country. Little, however, seemed likely to be done in other branches., lie should there fore give notice,-that, on .this day se'nnight, he should call their Lordships' attention to those branches of the Civil List not connectedAvith the person . al expenses of the Sovereign. The notice was entered, and the_ Lords were ordered to _be. summoned. . Lord ARUUTIINOT presented a Petition from Kincardine, praying for, Agricultural Relief. — Laid on the table.. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a Pe tition from two Gentlemen of the name of Fou drinier, praying for an extension of their Patent for making Paper.—Laid on the table. NAVY FIVE PER CENTS. The Earl of LIVERPOOL having moved the Or der of the Day for the third reading of the Five per Cents. Bill, The Earl of ROSEBERRY briefly expressed his approbation of the measure. He conceived that all' the conditions required had been fulfilled, and that if it had been otherwise, their Lord ships'. table would have shewn some Petitions against the measure. As none had been pre sented, it' was clear that the individuals inte rested in the subject considered that no breach of faith had been committed towards them. _ . The Marquis of LANSDOWNE approved of the measure, and considered it the most safe and justifiable mode of reducing the National Debt. It was on , that account that he wished to make it still more perfect, and to remove the objections which had been urged against it. He should therefore propose to extend the time allowed to Stockholders to express their dissent. He had not 'done it in the Committee, but had delayed his motion till the third reading, because he wished that it should be entered on the Journals of the House. He then moved, that instead of the lOth of March, the 16th of April be in serted. The motion having been put and negatived, the Bill was read a third time and passed. IRELAND. Lord C 4LTHOUPE wished to obtain certain Returns, which were an almost indispensable preliininary to - that inquiry into the state of Ire. land, which could not be long delayed after the extraordinary measures which had lately been adoPted for the pacification of that country. He therefore should move—" That an humble Ad dress be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he would graciously be pleased to order that there should be laid before the House a Return of all Commitments to Gaols in Counties in Ireland where the Insurrection Art had been put in force during the last six months, and of all the Convictions which had taken place under Commissions of Assize in the same Counties." — Agreed to.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. IMPORTATION OF CORN. Mr. SYKES presented a Petition from certain Merchants of Kingston-upon-Hull, who, in 1819 and 1820, made large imPortations of foreign corn, upon which they had suffered great loss,' in consequence of the change in the circulating me dium since that period. They complained that that measure, by its operation upon the value of money, had virtually raised the protecting duties from eignty to above a hundred shil lings:- They did not wish that such corn should be admitted to the markets without a duty, but it should be such a one as would allow of its being Sold. At present they had no hope .of ever getting it off their hands. The lion. Member stated, that he was as great a friend as any man to the agricultural inte. rests, but he would never consent to give farmers relief; by do ing injustice to any other set of men. Mr. RICARDO considered, that as far as the protecting price was increased, he thought the Petitioners entitled to relief. Mr. BENNETT said, that if the Petitioners were allowed relief, upon the ground of the change in the value of money consequent upon the resumption of cash payments, all debtors, and almost every other description of persons, were entitled to the same relief. After a few further observations from Mr. T. WILSON Mr. S. WORTLEY, and Mr. SYKES, the Petition was ordered to lie on the table. MR. HUNT. Mr. NEWMAN presented a petition from certain Inhabi tants of Exeter, complaining that the sentence upon the above individual had been aggravated by the regulations of the gaol in which ha was confined. Mr. S. WORTLEY said, he was anxious to take this op. portunity of stating his belief that Mr. Hunt had been harshly treated, and in a manner beyond the intention of the sentence which was passed upon him. Ile did think that, in considera tion of these citcunistances, it would be just to remit the re mainder of his sentence. Mr. HUI'dE begged to remind the House, that the Hon. Member for Somersetshire had stated on a former occasion that orders had been sent down to the jail to treat Mr. Hunt with less severity, and that in consequence he had been allowed to walk out in a yard whenever he chose. Now he had received a letter from Mr. Hunt, stating that the door of his cell con tinued to be shut, excepting for three hours a day, by the order of Dr. Coniston, one of the visiting Magistrates. Mr. CORBETT made an observation, which was not audible. Sir T. LET.BRIDGE said, that what he had stated to the House the other day was so stated upon the authority of a Magistrate, who had informed him that Mr. Hunt now re— ceived the same indulgences, or perhaps he should more pro perly call them-freedoms, which had been allowed to him when he first entered the jail. With regard to the petition before the House he -.begged to make some remarks upon its con tents: The petitioners averred that Mr. Hunt was subjected to solitary confinement. NOw he could not, and he would not allow, that he'had ever been in solitary confinement in the gaol of Ilchester. He was strongly attached to the free exer cise of the right of petition in the subject, and he should be the last to impose any restrictions upon it.' But he most pro test against the House going along with assertions con tained in 'petitions without examining into their falsehood or truth, and particularly when• they involved the characters of respectable individuals exeicising- the important duties of Magistrates, It was for this reason that he deprecated the course which some Honourable Members.had athipted towards the Magistracy of the county of Somerset. He called upon the 'Nouse not to countenance 'assertions 'and. charges until they had the-means before them of examining 'into their truth or. falsehood. He did not mean to say that there had been no abuses ; he did not mean to call upon . the House to disbelieve that the Magistrates had not done their duty, or that the jailer had been guilty of mai-practices. 'All he traked was, that they Would suspend their judgments. With regard to the manage ment of the prison, he believed that it would be found to have been different to what it was 'stated to have been in that House. - He did not say this from any connection which he had had with the jail, because he lived at a considerable dis tance from it, and his habits did not lead him to pay much at tention to its internal arrangements ; hut he believed that they would be found to have been, generally speaking, of a different character than that which had been ascribed to them. Undoubt edly it might have its faults and its inconveniences; he did not mean to deny that, or that the jailer had been gqilty of malver sation. But he had been dismissed by the Magistrates as .a pu nishment for his offences as soon as they were proved againsthim. With regard to the alleged maltreatment of Mr. Hunt, there was his own evidence in direct contradiction of what he now asserted. He believed, therefore, that it was principally because it suited his views that he made such complaints. Some time after his im prisonment commenced lie addressed himself to others, to the ef fect that his state in the jail was Paradise compared to theirs. And who were the parties to whom he addressed this language, and made this comparison ? To men, not confined like himself irra.jail, bat • in the-full possession oiliberty.• He thought that this proved that Mr. Hunt had rather chaziged his opinion of the jail, thin that the jail had changed in its severity to him. These declarations were made, he believed, after Mr. Hunt had been confined in the jail for two or three months. But supposing thatt - he had.only been there , one month, that was quite long enough for him to have found out such objections as he had since made. He declared at that time, in the strong est language, his satisfaction at the regularity of the jail, and particularly - at its cleanliness. He said that although he was confined in a dungeon, he bad nothing to complain of. He (Sir T. Lethbridge) did not mean to say that there were not local inconveniences about the jail. He did not mean to say that it was not damp in time of floods. That was cer tainly true. But in iui general arrangement great sums of money had been, expended, and it was now the object of the NI agistrates to gleviate as much as possible the inconvenience arising from dampness. They could not prevent the floods, but they were taking measures to prevent their affecting the rooms of the jail as far as that object could be effected. Ile respected the motives which brought the Petitioners forward in support of Mr. Hunt. They thought he had been treated with injustice. It was-truly English feeling to be jealous of a man receiving punishment and oppression beyond what his crime deserved. Such was the belief under which the people of England inter fered, and all he asked was, that they should wait until the con duct of Mr. Hunt was investigated, in order to see whether there had been any thing in his conduct which deserved in creased severity, if it had been actually exercised towards him. It was the object of Mr. Hunt to be a great man, and nothing could so effectually make him one in the estimation of the peo ple of England, as the belief that lie had been oppressed and unjustly punished. If then, the Magistrates were hostile to him, they would not pursue the very cause most likely to secure his object. He had troubled the House thus much in order to set the case upon its just standing, in justice to the Magistrates, as far as it lay in his power to do so. ' Sir R. WIL,SON said, that the circumstance of Mr. Hunt having written in language otcontent at his situation in Belies ter jail when he first went there, clearly proved that he did not enter it in a disposition to find fa , ult. The fact was well known, that the treatment of which he complained had not been exer cised towards him during the early part of his imprisonment, while Sir Charles Bamfylde was High Sheriff of the county. It was only upon the expiration of the'time during which that Gentleman held the office, that the cruel treatment which he suffered had been imposed. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE explained. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that the complaint now made by the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) could have no foundation, for he was convinced that the same treatment was now observed towards the prisoner, as during the time when Sir Charles Bamfylde was Sheriff'. He saw a letter which was written to that effect by the present High Sheriff ten days ago, and he had reason to believe that it had been strictly complied with. Mr. NEWMAN observed, that nothing could so much tend to give Mr. Hunt weight with the people as the 'conduct which had been pursued towards him. He should be glad to find that the unjust severity with which he had been treated would be softened by the remission of the remainder of the imprisonment to which he had been sentenced. The Petition was ordered to be printed. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Lord NORMANBY presented a Petition from Higham Ferrers, in the county of Northampton, complaining of Agri cultural Distress.—Referred to the Agricultural Committee. IRISH TYTIftS. Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition from twelve Parishes in the South of Ireland, praying for an alteration in the present system of Tythes in that country. He considered the subject to be one of the very first importance, and such as claimed the earliest and most solemn attention of the House. The Petition ers were chiefly respectable. clerical and lay impropriators, and they considered that all the disturbances and deplorable misery which Ireland bad experienced of late years were to be traced to this cause. They had less hesitation in calling upon Parlia ment to make these alterations, because they themselves were interested in ti* system as it now stood. They also implored that the subject would be considered as involving the safety of the Church Establishment in that country ; therefore it was not only as a relief to the Agricultural interests of Ireland that they called for this alteration, but as a Stipport to the Church itself. He •Was not only anxious that this subject should have the early attention of the House, but that it should be brought forward on the part of Government, because he consid ered it to be a most dangerous, difficult, and complicated ques tion. He did hope that when it was brought forward, it would be placed alone upon its own merits, and not combined with other questions, such as the Church Establishment, or the system of Tythes in England. It was impossible to draw any comparison whatever betwixt the Tythes of the two countries. —Ordered to be printed. Mr. S. RICE moved for Returns of all Emoluments paid to Clerks of the Crown and Clerks of the Peace in Ireland within the two last years ; stating whence they ensued, and whether they were paid in fees.—Ordered. NEW WRIT. Mr. BERN/IL, in rising to move that a New Writ be issued for a Burgess to serve in Parliament for the City of Lincoln, wished to express his deep regret at the cause of such a mo tion. However he might have differed from the late Member for Lincoln, in his political views, lie always admired them, no less as bting the result of conscientious conviction, than for the manliness and candour with which they were always avowed and supported.—A new writ was accordingly issued. MR. HUNT. _ _ _ Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a Petition from 8000 In habitants of the Town of Leeds, complaining of the manner in which Mr. Hunt had been treated' in llchester _gaol. The sig natures were most respectable, and contained the names of some of the most respectable men in Leeds, as well as that of the late Sheriff of the adjoining County that in which Mr. Hunt was confined. The Hon. Alderman said, he should not enter further into the question, as it was his intention to do so when the papers now printing were before the House. He thought the evidence might be put into the hands of Members as it was printed, in order to save time. Mr. 'WYNN expressed his strong objection 'to such a course as the Hon. Alderman seemed disposed to adopt, upon the ground that prejudice might be excited by it in the minds of Members, which might not be the case if all the evidence came together. The SPEAKER expressed his astonishment at what had. fallen from the Hon. Alderman. It was the duty of the per son who had the honour to fill the Chair of that House to see that all Returns were printed without delay, and to take care that they were delivered to Members as soon as possible. It was his duty also, when any papers were ordered to be printed by the House, to prevent their being delivered by pieces. 111r.'Altlerman WOOD explained. The SPEAKER said, that he should always act upon the principle which he had alliided to, unless it was the feeling of the House that in this or any other particular case, papers should be distributed as they came fl-om the press. Mr. PEEL said, be rose because he was alluded to by the worthy Alderman. He bad no more controul over the print ing of the documents submitted to that House than the worthy Alderman had. He did not know precisely on what day the evidence could be printed, nor did be,recollbct that lie had ever said three days or four days. He expressed his belief that the evidence*could soon be put into Members' hands. The SPEAKER said, he was sony again to trouble the House. The present case would govern all of a similar kind. The House would perceive the difficulty of his situation, if he were take on himself the responsibility of delivering out part of the evidence before the whole was prepared. He should, in that case, be at the trouble of reading and examining every part of it, to see that there were no ex-parte statements. Mr. SYKES thought the subject of the Petition ought to have the greatest attention and investigation from the House, affecting, .as it did, to such an extent, the personal liberty of the subject. Ile was convinced that Mr. Justice Best never intended that the rules which he signed for 'the use of the jail of Ilchester should apply to political misdemeanours. He was under the painful necessity of believing that the visiting Ma gistrates had not performed the duty . required of them by law, in inspecting the condition, of the prisoners in the jail. Mi. Serjeant ONSLOW said a few words in• praise of the conduct of the Judges. Mr. SYKES explained. Mr. DICKEIVSON vindicated the manner in which the vi siting Magistrates had performed their duty. The Petition was'then ordered to be printed. A Message from the Lords announced that their Lordships had agreed to the Navy Five per Cents.' Bill without amend, ment. PREVENTION OF FORGERY. Mr. G. BENNE TT presented a Petition from James Fer guson, of Newman-street, Oxford.street, Stereotyper and Printer, complaining that neither the Commissioners for in quiring into the means of preventing forgery, nor the Bank Directors, would investigate a plan which he had submitted I to them for obtaining that object, notwithstanding that he had made repeated applications to them for that purpose. The Hon. Member considered that the only means to be pnrsuedfor preventing the dreadful extent of crime and convictions which had taken place of late years, was to render the imitation of notes as difficult as possible. He did not mean to give the preference to one plan or another, but he was quite sure of all the notes he had seen those now- in use by the Bank presented the greatest facilities of imitation. He understood that the Bank Directors having found the plan they itad chosen to fail, had abandoned the idea of altering the notes. Mr. MANNING said that this was not the first time the Petitioner had applied to the House. A similar Petition to the present stood upon the Journals of the House, which the Honourable Member for Taunton presented last year. The statement that the Commissioners and the Directors had refused to investigate his plan, was false. It had been fully examined at different periods, and found to be inadequate to the desired purpose. The Hon. Member stated his belief that the Bank Directors had no intention of endeavouring to prevent the commission of the crime of forgery. But if he would attend to what the Directors had done, he thought he would come to a very different conclusion. After a labonou investigation of the various plans proposed to the Commissions ers, they selected one which they sent to the Bank Directors, and it was at first adopted by them. It was afterwards found to fail, and it was stated that the Directors then abandoned the attempt ; but that was not the case. They were still anxious to discover a plan which would give security to all parties. If the present notes were easy of imitation, it was some security that it was also easy to detect forgeries upon them. He had the satisfaction- to inform the Hon. Member and the House, that since the month of May last the total number of prosecu- tions for forgeries upon notes of 51. and upwards was only fifteen. At the present time, in the metropOlis they had only one person under prosecution, and in the kingdom at large only six. This, and the fact, that the Bank had withdrawn its small notes from circulation, he thought, were the best answers which could be given to the Petition. Mr; HUME said, that the argument of his flon. Friend, the Member for Shrewsbury, had been mistaken _by the Honour able Member. He was happy, however, to hear that the Bank had not given up the subject. While on his legs he wished to ask the Noble Marquis opposite, whether our Ambassador to the United States had not applied to every banker in the Union on the subject of these notes ? If so, he presumed there would be no objection to lay before the House the correspondence which had taken place. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he was not aware that there would be any objection to produce the correspond ence. The result of it had been so far thought favourable, that a Gentleman belonging to one of the banking houses had been encouraged to come to this country to communicate with the Bank of England. Mr. PEEL said that as so much complaint had been made of the distress caused by the resumption of cash payments, he trusted the fact would not be overlooked, that prosecutions for forgery had diminished. The Petition was ordered to be printed. Lord EBRINGTON presented a Petition from Queen Camel, in Devonshire, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and praying for a reduction of Taxation and for Parliamentary Reform. After a few words in its support from the Noble Lord, the Petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. COKE moved for a Return of the quantity of Wool im ported into Great Britain from the Ist of January, 1821, to the Ist of January, 1822 ; a like Account of the Exports for the same period ; and similar Accounts respecting the Imports and Exports of Butter, Cheese, Tallow, and Hides.—Ordered. POSTMASTER-GENERAL. Mr. CALCRAFT moved for an Account of the number of days on which Lord Clancarty attended at the Post Office, while lie held the office of Postmaster-General ; with the date of his appointment to, and that of his resignation of, the office. The Honourable Member said he did not make the motion for the purpose of insinuating any thing to the prejudice of the Nobleman in question, for whose character he had the highest respect. His motion referred merely to the nature of the office. _ _ -- —. The — Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought it would be difficult to remove from the motion all appearance of insinua tion, though the Hon. Member had disclaimed any wish to convey it. The fact was, that the office in question did not nee l i cessarily require much personal attendance. Lord Clancarty when he held it had been called away at 48 hours notice to ac company the King of the Netherlands, when he set out on the opening of the Continent to take possession of his kingdom.— That Noble Lord bad obtained the confidence of the Court in question, and finding that his return to this country became un certain, he resigned the office. The talents and diligence of Lord Clancarty, as a public officer, were universally admitted. He (the Marquis) believed that the Duke of Wellington, when he was Secretary for Ireland, had held that office while he was commanding the English Army in Portugal. Unless the Hon. Member would state some reason in support of the motion, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. Mr. CALCRAFT said, it now clearly appeared that the holder of the efficient office of. Postmaster General had been absent during the greater part of the time he had held it. He (Mr. C.) fully agreed with the Noble Marquis in his descrip tion of the public conduct of Lord Clancarty ; but that Noble man individually was not the object of the motion. The mo tion itself he had no wish at all to press ; for he had gained an admission of the fact that we could go on for two years with only one Postmaster-General. The high character of Lord Clancarty, coupled with the fact admitted by the Noble Mar quis, were proofs tHat the office was a sinecure ; for Lord Clan carty would not have retained it while he was abroad, if he thought his doing so would be in the least detrimental to the public service. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that the reasoning of the lion. Member, if good, would prove that the office of Secret,ry of State for Foreign Affairs was also a sinecure; for he (the Marquis) had had the honour to hold the office during his absence abroad. Mr. CALCRAFT said, the slight difference was, that the Noble Marquis while abroad, was acting as Secretary for Fo reign Affairs. He supposed it would not be contended that Lord Clancarty, while he was abroad, discharged any part of the duties of English Postmaster-General. The Marquis Of LONDONDERRY and Mr. CALCRAFT mutually explained. Lord NORMANDY said, that when he considered the ma terials of which the majority of last night was composed, he could not but consider the result as a protracted triumph rather than a defeat. He should bring the subject again before the House in the course of the present or the next Session, and he looked with confidence to the issue. . T e motion was then negatived without a division. STATE OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Mr. MABERLY said that, in bringing forward the motion with which he should conclude his statement that evening, he felt it necessary to say, that on a'lbrmer occasion he had been induced to withdraw a motion for Accounts in consequence of a promise given by the other side that the accounts would be printed. He gave in a paper of the accounts he wished to have returned, and he had now to complain that the papers were not returned ; and further, that the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had the advantage of the paper. He was, therefore, in a situation very different from that on which he should be placed had he in his hands the Accounts which were promised to be furnished. So that if he erred in the course of his statement, the House would not impute it to a wish to misrepresent or fal sify the Public Accounts. The House was aware that there was an Act in form which required that the Public' Accounts for each year should be laid on the table of the House before the 25th of March in each year. But there was in this Act no provision compelling the production of a balance-sheet, in which the actual state of the income and expenditure would appear. But there was a clause in the Audit Act which re quired that such a sheet should be printed with the Accounts for this year. But as the Public Accounts for this yeas were not on the table,' he should advert to another paper laid on the table by the Noble Marquis, purporting to be a statement of the net public income and expenditure for the year ended Jan. 5, 1821. It would be his objat, then, to show that the ba lance-sheet of that year, as compared with the Public Accounts, was in error. The first part of the account was an account of the net public income from ordinary and extraordinary sources for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the year ended sth January, 1821 ; and then he would compare it with an account, purporting to be an account of the net income of the country for the same period. He would take the first head of Customs. The amount of net income from Customs, appeared by the Public Accounts to be - , - £9,862,462 In the Account of the Noble Marquis - 9,837,279 Being a difference of - - • £25,188 But not only did these two accounts differ from themselves under this head, but each differed from a third, called the abstract account, and all three varied from a fourth whiCh was laid on the table by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There then were four accounts purporting to' be statements of Public Accounts, and each varying from the other. In the article of-Excise,, the Public Accounts, and the account of the Noble Marqu►s were the same, but they differed in some respect from the abstract account. There was the same agreement under the head of Stamps, and both differing from the abstract Account. In the Post Office there was a ariation between the Noble Marquis's Account and the public one, of 7,0001. ; and those again differed frOm the ab stract and the Account of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the head of taxes, there app_eared a difference be tween the Noble Marquis and the -Public Account to the amount of • 24,0001. - In the article of Hackney Coaches a difference of 1,1671. and that of Hawkers 3,0001. He would not say that all these differences might not be reconciled upon examination, but the Public Accounts should be of that simple, intelligible nature, as not to require any explanation. There was an item of seizures and fines amounting to 6,5281. in the Account of the Noble Marquis, which did not appear at all in the Public Accounts. There were several other item's of difference, such as that of the arrears of the Pro, perty Tax to the amount of 24,0001. ; that .of the impress re paid 14,7061. ;_a small difference on Contracts for the redemp tion. of Land Tax ; a difference of 36,0001. as money repaid in Ireland on account of advances from the ,Ccti,solidated Fund ; and, lastly, there was an item of 260,0001., the proceeds of old stores which did not appear in the Public Accounts. Now he was aware that the absence of this item in the Public Accounts, could be explained by the statement thatthe public had the ad vantage of it in the Navy estimates. But besides the absurdity of taking the proceeds of Old Stores as an item in the Ways and Means, he objected to the course on account of its obscuri ty.—The item of Unclaimed Dividends which appeared in the Public Accounts was not included in the Account of the Noble Marquis. The total amount of the net income, as stated in the Account of the Noble Marquis, was 54,542,9581. differing from the total of the Public Account by 80,6961. and from the total of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Account by 54,9551. There was another variation in the item of Excess of Income over Ex penditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Account stat ed the surplus to be 1,831,0001. The Account of the Noble Marquis stated the item to be 1,447,5801. He wouldlnext shew the variation in the Accounts in the items of public Expendi ture. The first item under the head of Expenditure was the interest of the National Debt. He would take this and the other items respectively, and show their variance from each other. Public Account - - £29,403,391 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 29,438;380 Difference - - 34,988 SINKING -FUND. Public Account Account of the Marquis of Londonderry £17,510,608 17,499,773 Difference - - - 10,895 INTEREST ON EXCHEQUER BILLS AND IRISH TREASURY BILLS. Public Account - - - £1,849,210 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 2,015,617 Public Account CIVIL LIST. Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 41,032.000 Difference 1,071,758 19,758 ALLOWANCES TO ROYAL FAMILY, AND OTHER ALLOWANCES CHARGED UPON TIIE CONSO LIDATED FUND.. Public Account _ _ _ £327,068 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry - 3*600 Difference - _ - 32,520 SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES. _ _ Public Account - - - - £56,948 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry - 68,618 Difference - - - - 11,670 OFFICERS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE. Public Account - - - - £65,137 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry - 61,979 Difference - • - - - 3,158 EXPENSES OF THE MINT. Public Account - - £15,79.0 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 14,760 Difference ' - BOUNTIES. Public Account - - - - £2,849 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry - 2,956 Difference In the miscellaneous articles there was a difference of 69,081. The next charge was for the Army. This the House would see was a cash account ; the money was contemplated as paid in both Accounts, yet they exhibited an accountable discrepancy. ARMY. Public Account - - - £8,927,424 Account Of the Marquis of Londonderry Difference NAVY. 8;941,354 Public Account Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 14,930 £6,387,796 6;647 ; 799 Difference - - - - • 260,000 The variance in this item was satisfactorily explained by car rying the amount of the produce of old stores (260,0001,) to the account of the public in the Navy Estimates for the follow ing year. ORDNANCE. Public Account - - a .41 401 588 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry Difference - - - MISCELLANEOUS. Public Account Account of the Marquis of Londonderry Difference 1;092;292 309, 296 .2,616,736 2,492;41 124,495 Besides all these variations, the House would see the great ob scurity in which the suc ceeding items—the payment to the Bank of England to make their balance, on account of un claimed dividends and the articles of discount upon prompt payment, and for their allowance for receiving the loan.—He trusted that the Hon. Member would be able to clear up the confusion which prevailed in this part of the statement. He begged to call the attention of the House next to the variation in the item of the balance in the Exchequer for the year end ing January, 1821 : , Public Account - £13,423,938 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 7,489,745 Difference - - - - 5,934,193 Here was a difference.of an extraordinary nature. He should be told, of course, that he was a very ignorant-person not to be able to account for the variation ; but these accounts were unexplained. There were other items in the public account, such as the charge of the Civil Government in Scotland,the Pen sions in Scotland, and the Militia items; none of those appeared in the account of the Noble Lord. However, notwithstand ing all the variations which the two accounts presented, yet it was wonderful how, in the sum total, they approximated to each other. The total sums in each account stood thus : Public Account - - - £53,340,111 Account of the Marquis of Londonderry 53,095,377 Difference - 244,734 To those who did not usually apply themselves to the examina tion of these details, it might appear that balances in the Ex chequer meant sums of money unappropriated. But the case was otherwise—the balance, in fact, was already appropriated. With respect to the Sinking Fund, he should at present abstain from entering into any details. Unless the Hon. Uentleman explained to the House satisfactorily the cause of these varian ces, he should undoubtedly feel it his duty to press the motion to a division. He was persuaded that a very considerable saving might be made to the country annually by a more intelligible statement of the public accounts. He did not mean to charge those who prepared the accounts with any intention to deceive ; but there was a want of perspicuity in the account& which called for a thorough reformation. He concluded by moving, " That a Select Committee be appointed to simplify, and for the better arrangement of the public accounts." - Mr. LUSHINGTON said, that with regard to the delay which occurred in the production of the Public Accounts, that was attributable to the busy state of the offices at this particular season, when the clerks were employed in making up the ac counts of the year. Upon the other head (namely, the dif ferences in the Accounts presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Noble Friend near him), he hoped to be able to give a satisfactory answer. The mode in which he would reconcile the difference of these two accounts was this : that class called the Finance Accounts, but were more properly Exche quer Accounts, and which was that presented by his Right Hon. Friend, contained payments into the Exchequer only, whereas the Accounts presented by the Noble Marquis, on the 15th of. February, related to the net income of the country ap plicable to the public service for the year. Now, it should be remarked, that the whole of the Revenue of the year was not paid into the Exchequer; and, on the other hand, there were monies paid into the Exchequer which never went to the public service of the year.—(Hear 0)-Hence arose the difference in the accounts. Having thus accounted for the differences generally, he should proceed to the items. The first item was the . Cus toms, the amount of which was stated, In the Finance Accounts, at - - £9,862, 462 In the Accounts of the oble Marquis, at 9,837,279 Difference - 25,183 This arose from certain monies, arising from the 4i per cent. duties, being paid into the Exchequer, which did not go to the service of the year, and were not, therefore, put in the Noble Lord's Account. The SoutJ Sea Duties, to the amount of 8401., were also payable into the Exchequer by the Receiver- General, and this made up the whole difference. The Excise was the next item ; which, in both Accounts, was stated at 27,929,3531. ; and, as there was no difference, the same obser vation applied to the Stamps. In the Post-office there was a difference of 7,0001. He would reconcile this by stating that the last payment, which was exactly 7,0001., was not paid in by the Receiver-General until after the 10th of January ; and as the Accounts had been made up the sth January, this item of course did not enter into them. He admitted, however, that for the sake of regularity, this item should be placed to the ac count of the year. The next difference in the Accounts was in the taxes, which was stated at 24,0001. This was accounted for by the transfer from one head of tax to another. The differ ]ences in the Hackney Coaches and Chairs of 1,1621., and of 'Hawkers and Pedlars of 3,0001. were to be accounted for upon ' the same prinCiple as the Post-office, namely—that sums to this amount had been , paid in subsequently to the sth January, and were not, therefore, in the Accounts before the House.— In the item of " One shilling and sixpence duty, and duty on Pensions," there was no difference. The duty of 4s. on Pensions, amounting to 15,4931., certainly was not in the Finance Accounts at all ; and this lie considered an omission. The difference in the Accounts with regard to Unclaimed Divi dends was accounted for as being repaid to the Bank. The dif ference 'of 260,0001. in the Account of the Proceeds of Old Stores had been transferred to the Navy Estimates, which were so much less. There were other smaller items, which he would not notice. He admitted that the difference in the Fines and Forfeitures, which amounted to 4171., was not in the Finance Account. The differences, therefore, between the two Accounts were easily reconcilable, by the circumstance of one Account containing returns of monies paid into the Exchequer; and the other of the net income of the year. He would reconcile the differences in the expenditure in the same way. One Account contained a return of the sum issued from the Exchequer to the Army, Navy, and Ordnance—the other, the absolute charge of these establishments. But he did not mean to say that this , mode of keeping the Accounts was the best.—(Hear.)—lf he had said so, he should be inconsistent, as it was the intention of his Right Honourable Friend to move for a Committee to examine into these Accounts. But he contended that there was no blame attributable to the Treasury upon this. score. The Accounts were kept now as they had been since 1802 ; and, indeed, there was an Act passed in that year for regulating them. He concurred with Gentlemen at the other eide, however,that some new arrangements should be introduced into these Accounts. —But he (Mr. Lushington) hoped he had shewn that in the Accounts, so far as they went, referred to by the Hon. Member, there was no material incorrectness. Under these circumstances he saw no necessity for the Committee moved for by the Honourable Member. He was more induced to • think so, as his Right Honourable Friend intended so soon to move for his Committee for the arrangement of the Public Accounts: As, however, these differences appeared in the Public Accounts, he had no objection to the appoint ment of a Committee to reconcile these differences; but he should decidedly oppose their going further, as they would but forestall the duties of his Right Honourable Friend's Committee. It may be recollected too, that his Right Hon. Friend intended giving to his Committee larger powers than the Hon. Member would give to the Committee for which he was now moving. The Committee for general revision would be more properly called to the consideration of the public Ac counts after the 25th March, when all the Accounts for the year would be before the House. He should therefore propose, as an amendment, " That a Select Committee be appointed to consider from what causes the accounts of payments into the Exchequer up to the sth January appear not to agree with the Finance Accounts of the net income of the year presented to this House upon the 15th of Feb. 1822." Sir J. NEWPORT said, that the accounts of the public re: venue ought to be so plain as to be obvious to every intelligent mind—they ought to be so plain as to render it unneceisary for a NI ember of that House to be obliged to go into a detail of an hour • in length, in order to see how one account could be reconciled with another. Such was the manner in which the accounts of every well regulated mercantile house were kept. He was sure that a mercantile house of any character whatever would feel itself disgraced if its accounts required any statement whatever to explain them—if the Book-keeper should be obliged to say, though innumerable errors are on th e f ace o f t h ese accounts , yet I can account for and explain those errors. He (Sir J. Newport) asked for no explanation of errors—he wished to know why those errors should have existed. It was not the first time that he (Sir J. Newport) called the attention of that House to the state of the Public Accounts. He had known the same Accounts furnished from the same office, even after,the short interval of three months, vary most materially. The cause was that the artificial' mode adopted in the keeping of the Public. Accounts served much more to complicate than to sim plify thope accounts. Captain MABERLY said, that he would detain the House but with one single observation ; it was to point out the dif ference between the motion of his Hon. Relative and the Amendment moved by the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. •The motion of his Hon. Relative ras for a Select Committee, for the purpose of simplifying and better arranging the public . Accounts. The Amendment of the Hon. Secretary only went to the investigation of particular accounts. The one had a mere retrospective action—the other an action at once prospec tive and general. Mr. RICARDO said, that the public accounts ought to he so plain as that every person at first sight, should be able to see, , and clearly understand them, to see how the different items were stated, and how the balance stood. He should have ex -^pected that the statements of the Noble Lord and the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) respecting the public accounts should agree ; but so far from agreeing, they differed very widely indeed. No one ' meant to throw imputations on the Right Honourable Gen tleman ; no one meant to say that he or his Colleagues would wilfully make up improper accounts, but what he wished to see effected was, that instead of being complicated, the public accounts should be stated so plainly as to satisfy every intel ligent person that might take the trouble of inspecting them. Mr. HUME rose amidst loud cries of Question, question.— He said, he wished the House to understand thoroughly that which they were so loudly calling for. He saw great room here in these accounts for improvement, but if the amendment were carried, he thought but little would be effected. The Treasury admitted the system to be imperfect, and it seemed to be the in tention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring the subject on a broad scale before the House shortly ; he should therefore suggest to his Hon. Friend to withdraw the motion, if he could obtain the leave of the House, and the Hon. Secretary for the Treasury would consent to withdraw his amendment, leaving the matter open to be dealt with by the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite in the manner best suited to .public convenience. In the years 1815, 1816, 1817, indeed up to the present moment, the House had voted sums of money, which were not yet ac counted for. The duty of the Committee would be, therefore, to examine into the expenditure and applicatinn of those sums. He should conclude by expressing his hope, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would redeem the pledge he had given last year, and bring this subject fairly before the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER felt surprised at the charge of incorrectness applied to the papers laid upon the table of the House, by his Right Hon. Friend. He could have no objection th3t the whole of the question should be-fully discussed ; but he wished that discussion should be postponed. until the meeting of the Cemmittee for the appointing of which he meant to mo ve , an d w hi c h b e should propose to be perfectly similar to that appointed last year. As soon as that Committee should be appointed, it would be his duty to name a day for the discussion of the whole subject. On that understanding he hoped hie . Hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his motion. —(Hear, hear.) Mr. CALCRAFT said he was sure the House and the coun try .would feel obliged to his Hon. Friend (Mr. Maberly) for drawing the public attention to the mistakes which appeared in the public accounts. But as the General Committee which the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in timated his intention to move for, would necessarily embrace the object of his Hon. Friend, he trusted that his Hon. Friend would withdraw his motion. • After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the EX-- CHEQUER, Mr. MABERLY said, that his object in bringing forward motion which he had that night submitted to the House, was solely to devise a plan by means of which the public accounts might be rendered more simple, more intelligent, and satisfac tory. He would, however, after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman, withdraw his motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then gave no tice, that on the 18th of April he would move for a Committee of the House to consider the state of keeping the public accounts, and for simplifying the same. RUSSIAN TARIFF. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY said, that a question had some nights since been put to him, whether a document which had appeared in the public papers under the shape of a new Tpriff was correct ? To that question he answered, that he had received no information respecting the Tariff ; but he now begged to say, that since that conversation took place, he had received dispatches dated the 22d of February, which stated, that no Tariff up to that period had been issued. He therefore was now at liberty to say that the document in question was not correct. Lord ALTIIORP gave notice of a motion for the Reveal of the Tax on Leather, for the 24th of April. BOARD OF CONTitOI Mr. CREEVEY began by observing, with reference to the motion of which he bad given notice relative to the Board of Control, that he had frequently made observations in that I-louse as to the propriety of making some alterations in the• formation of that Board. He bad done this without success, notwithstanding that some late changes had offered a favour able opportunity for putting his plan into execution. Th e Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to detail the different changes that had taken place in the Board since its origin. They all knew the difference of opinion relative to the forma tion of the Board, between Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt. It was in the year 1784. in consequence of an agreement betwixt the East India Company and Government, that Mr. Pitt formed